Get parsed transactions

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the 100-signature batch ceiling and the rich parsed content returned. It omits rate limits or auth requirements, but with annotations doing the safety lifting this is solid.

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 efficient sentences, front-loaded with the tool's nature and return content, with no filler. It is well-sized for the amount it needs to convey.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values and does so thoroughly (type, protocol, description, transfers, swaps, deltas). Combined with annotations covering safety, the definition is nearly complete, though the weak commitment/signature semantics is a residual gap.

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 only 33%; commitment (an enum with a default) and signatures carry no schema descriptions, so the description must compensate. It only restates the 100-signature limit and never explains what commitment means or how signatures are interpreted, leaving the key parameters under-specified.

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?

States a specific verb (parse) and resource (up to 100 transaction signatures) and enumerates exactly what the parse yields (type, source protocol, transfers, swaps, balance deltas). The phrase 'human-readable parse' plus 'primary way to understand what a transaction actually did' implicitly distinguishes it from get_transaction_raw and investigate_transaction without opening their schemas.

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 clearly positions this as the default/primary tool for understanding transaction behavior, which gives strong usage context. However it never names an alternative or an explicit when-not condition (e.g., when to prefer get_transaction_raw or investigate_transaction), leaving the routing to inference.

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