1s_tx_details_live

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states what is returned (transaction fields and receipt) and implies a read operation, but does not disclose whether it is read-only, idempotent, or any limitations (e.g., rate limits, authentication). Adequate but not detailed.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and clearly describe the return content. No unnecessary words.

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 output schema, the description provides a reasonable overview of return fields (transaction fields and receipt with status, gas used, logs). It omits a full list but is sufficient for an agent. Could be improved by noting it is a live RPC call.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it merely mentions 'hash' and 'network' without additional context or usage tips.

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 it retrieves 'full transaction data and receipt' directly from the RPC node, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes itself from sibling '1s_tx_receipt' by including both transaction fields and receipt.

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 when needing both transaction data and receipt, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like '1s_tx_receipt' or provide when not to use. No alternative guidance is given.

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