Get transaction

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavior. It clearly indicates a read-only fetch and adds useful knowledge about the return, namely that the receipt contains status, gas used, and logs. It stops short of describing error behavior, but mutation risk is absent and the main behavior is disclosed.

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?

It is two short sentences with no filler: the first defines what the tool does and the second adds a concise but meaningful feature of the receipt. Every word contributes.

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?

For a small read-only tool with only two parameters and no output schema, this description gives enough about the transaction plus a valuable receipt detail. It does not delve into selection between siblings or network errors, but the calling context is sufficiently sketched by the schema and the one-sentence purpose.

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 schema coveres 100% of the parameters with descriptions, including the hash format and network enum with defaults. The description only restates 'by hash,' adding no meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 starts with a specific verb 'fetch' and names the exact resource ('a transaction and its receipt') plus the lookup key ('by hash'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_block and get_address_transactions without opening their schemas.

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 the tool is for calls where a transaction hash is already known, but it doesn't explicitly contrast it with get_address_transactions or other retrieval tools. No when-not-to-use conditions or alternative tool names are mentioned.

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