stellar_get_transaction_meta

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses important behaviors: the primary/fallback fetch path, bounded payloads with truncation metadata, and operation_index behavior conditioned on non-truncation. It does not cover error handling or permission requirements, but the core behavioral traits are transparent enough for an agent to anticipate tool behavior.

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 dense sentences convey the tool's purpose, source routing, fallback, truncation behavior, and optional parameter semantics. There is no filler, and the most important information is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 description covers purpose, source behavior, fallback, truncation, and optional operation slicing, which is reasonably complete for a read-only fetch tool with three well-documented parameters. It lacks an explicit output shape, but the XDR payload nature is implied and there is no output schema requiring reconciliation.

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 coverage is 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that maxXdrCharsPerField bounds payloads with truncation metadata and that operationIndex slices the decoded TransactionMeta only when not truncated. This provides useful parameter behavior not present in the schema alone.

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 names a specific verb ('Fetch'), a clear resource ('transaction result / fee metadata XDR'), and a concrete source ('Horizon primary with Soroban RPC getTransaction fallback'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like stellar_get_ledger_meta by focusing on transaction metadata rather than ledger metadata.

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 gives clear usage context: it fetches transaction result/fee metadata, uses Horizon first and falls back to RPC, and optionally slices decoded TransactionMeta by operation index. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the scope is sufficiently clear for selection among the listed tools.

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