get_raw_transaction

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the backend requirement and notes the network override behavior, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose what happens on invalid txids, backend absence, or network mismatch, so it only partially exceeds annotation coverage.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action, followed by a concise parameter list. The 'Needs a backend' note is slightly terse but still earns its place. No redundant or filler sentences are present.

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, has an output schema, and annotations cover the read-only nature. The description covers prerequisites and parameter basics, but it leaves out acceptable network values and error behavior, and it offers no routing guidance among the many transaction-related siblings. This is adequate but with clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does: txid is defined as a 64-hex-character transaction ID, and network is defined as an override for the server's network. This adds real value beyond the bare schema, though valid network values are not enumerated.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch a transaction's raw hex', which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_transaction or decode_raw_transaction by emphasizing the raw hex output. It could more explicitly contrast with those siblings, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_transaction or decode_raw_transaction. The only contextual note, 'Needs a backend', is a prerequisite rather than a usage guideline. An agent is left to infer the appropriate selection.

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