Get transaction

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value by listing the returned data fields but does not disclose any other behavioral aspects like error handling or rate limits. No contradictions with annotations.

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, direct sentence that immediately states the tool's function and output. No filler or redundancy.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with complete schema coverage and informative annotations, the description adequately summarizes the return content. Although there is no output schema, the listed return categories give a sufficient overview. It could be more explicit about the response format, but it is not necessary for this low-complexity tool.

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%, with both parameters (signature and statusOnly) well documented, including defaults and types. The tool description adds little beyond mentioning 'by signature', but the schema already carries the semantic weight.

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 fetches a Thru transaction by signature, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on transactions rather than accounts, names, or network status. The return fields are also listed.

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 makes it clear when to use this tool: when you have a signature and need transaction details. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is straightforward. Adding a note about using query_events for searching transactions would improve it.

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