transaction

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses parameter defaults (e.g., noLogs defaults to true, withInternal defaults to false) and constraints (tracing only on eth-mainnet). However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, which is generally inferred but not guaranteed.

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: a brief purpose statement, followed by a clear list of required and optional parameters, and a note on constraints. It is informative without being overly verbose, though it could be slightly more concise by combining sentences.

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?

While the description covers parameters well, it lacks details about the return value, stating only 'Returns comprehensive details about the specified transaction.' Since no output schema is provided, the description could better set expectations about what 'comprehensive details' includes, such as the structure of the response.

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 input schema already has 100% coverage, but the description adds value by specifying default values for optional parameters (e.g., quoteCurrency defaults to USD) and highlighting that tracing features are only supported on eth-mainnet. This goes beyond the schema's descriptions, which lack some default context.

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: 'fetch and render a single transaction including its decoded log events.' It uses a specific verb ('fetch and render') and resource ('single transaction'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'transactions_for_address' which handle multiple transactions.

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 lists required and optional parameters, and notes that tracing features are only supported on eth-mainnet. While it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives, the context of 'single transaction' implies appropriate use cases compared to sibling tools for lists. The guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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