zetrix_get_transaction

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Get transaction details' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what 'details' include (e.g., status, timestamp, fees). This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, with every part contributing essential information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'transaction details' include (e.g., JSON structure, fields), potential errors, or behavioral context. For a tool with rich sibling tools and no structured support, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'hash' parameter fully documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as hash format or validation rules. According to rules, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high (>80%) and no param info is in the description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('transaction details'), specifying the action and target. It distinguishes from some siblings like 'zetrix_get_transaction_history' by focusing on a single transaction via hash, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from all similar tools like 'zetrix_get_transaction_blob' or 'zetrix_get_transaction_cache'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or compare with sibling tools like 'zetrix_get_transaction_history' for historical data or 'zetrix_get_transaction_blob' for raw data, leaving the agent to infer usage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.