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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves 'detailed information' but doesn't specify what 'more' includes, potential rate limits, error conditions (e.g., invalid hash), or whether it's a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' but not explicit). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant 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?

The description is concise and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in the first sentence and adding a brief detail list. Both sentences earn their place by clarifying scope ('by its hash') and content ('Includes...'). It avoids redundancy but could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating core function from output details).

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 moderately complete for a simple lookup tool. It covers the basic purpose and output fields but lacks behavioral details (e.g., error handling, network support beyond schema) and doesn't fully compensate for the missing output schema. It's adequate but has clear gaps in context.

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 already documents both parameters ('network' and 'txHash') with descriptions and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the hash is used for lookup, which the schema covers. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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: 'Get detailed information about a specific transaction by its hash' with a verb ('Get') and resource ('transaction'), and lists included fields like sender and recipient. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_transaction_receipt' or 'get_block_by_hash', which also retrieve transaction-related data, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific tool.

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 sibling tools like 'get_transaction_receipt' (which might provide complementary data) or clarify if this is the primary method for transaction lookup. The context is implied (need transaction details by hash) but lacks explicit usage boundaries or exclusions.

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