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 details but doesn't specify what details are included (e.g., status, inputs/outputs), whether it's a read-only operation, potential errors (e.g., invalid hash), or rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and key input, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, with zero waste.

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 moderate complexity (retrieving transaction details), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It specifies what the tool does but omits behavioral details, return format, and differentiation from siblings. With 100% schema coverage, it covers inputs but falls short on broader context needed for effective use.

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 (blockchain, txHash, network) with descriptions and an enum for network. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying txHash is the primary identifier, which is already clear from the schema. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('transaction details') with the specific identifier ('by transaction hash'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_transaction_receipt' or blockchain-specific transaction tools, which would require explicit comparison for a score of 5.

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 like 'get_transaction_receipt' or blockchain-specific transaction tools (e.g., 'get_cosmos_transaction'). It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a valid transaction hash, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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