sui_transaction_rich

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It reveals the tool is a GraphQL round-trip fetching multiple data types, implying read-only. However, it lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or potential errors, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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?

A single sentence front-loads the action and key outputs. It is efficient, though the phrase 'relational reads gRPC isn't shaped for' is slightly jargon-heavy. Overall concise and well-structured.

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 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a reasonable overview but omits details on return format, error handling, and usage constraints. It is minimally complete for a tool of this complexity.

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?

Schema coverage is 50% (only 'network' has a description). The description adds no parameter-level meaning—'digest' is mentioned but not explained (e.g., format). The description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 that the tool pulls transaction effects, gas summary, balance changes, and checkpoint pointer via GraphQL, distinguishing it from gRPC. The verb 'pull' and specific data types make the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies use for relational reads that gRPC isn't suited for, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like sui_get_transaction or provide when-not-to-use guidance. It offers decent context but no exclusions.

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