get_transaction_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and scope. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies that raw input is omitted by default to save context, explains the enriched data types returned (decoded parameters, token metadata, fee breakdown), and notes the tool's utility for specific use cases. No contradictions with annotations exist.

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 well-structured and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose, followed by key differentiators, parameter guidance, and use cases. Each sentence adds distinct value without redundancy, and the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity. There is no wasted text.

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 the tool's complexity (enriched transaction data) and lack of an output schema, the description does a good job explaining what information is returned (decoded parameters, token transfers with metadata, fee breakdown, transaction types). However, it doesn't detail the exact structure or format of the enriched data, which could be helpful for an agent. Annotations cover safety aspects adequately.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the three parameters (chain_id, transaction_hash, include_raw_input). The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema: it clarifies that include_raw_input=True is for 'raw hex data' and implies chain_id selects the blockchain, but doesn't provide additional details like format examples or constraints. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('get comprehensive transaction information') and resources ('transaction'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'transaction_summary' by emphasizing enriched data including decoded parameters, token transfers, fee breakdown, and transaction types. It explicitly contrasts with standard eth_getTransactionByHash, establishing its unique value.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('essential for transaction analysis, debugging smart contract interactions, tracking DeFi operations') and when to use the include_raw_input parameter ('only when you truly need the raw hex data'). It implicitly contrasts with simpler alternatives like 'transaction_summary' by highlighting comprehensive data, though it doesn't name specific siblings as alternatives.

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