get_transaction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly indicates a read operation ('Get') but adds no detail about side effects, error behavior, or return format. For a non-mutating tool, the lack of explicit safety disclosure is acceptable but not exemplary; it could note that no state changes occur.

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?

A single sentence that is concise, front-loaded, and free of fluff. It states the core action and key identifier without wasting words.

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?

The tool is simple with three schema-documented parameters and no output schema. The description adequately states its purpose, but 'detailed information' is a bit vague about the exact return shape or content. Given the tool's simple nature, the description is sufficient but could explicitly mention that it returns a structured object with transaction details.

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 schema covers all three parameters with full descriptions (hash, binary, network), so the description needs no elaboration. The description text itself 'detailed information' adds no semantic value beyond the schema, which already provides 100% coverage.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'transaction' with a clear identifier 'by its hash', distinguishing it sharply from sibling account/ledger/nft tools. It unambiguously states the tool's function in a direct manner.

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?

Usage is implied from the hash parameter and the tool's name, but there is no explicit guidance about when to use this vs. alternatives or any exclusions. The description doesn't mention that this is for retrieving a single transaction rather than listing transactions, nor does it refer to sibling tools.

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