Fetch and decode a Bitcoin transaction by txid to inspect its details, with optional network override.
Fetch and decode a transaction by txid. Needs a backend.
Args: txid: The 64-hex-character transaction ID. network: Override the server's network for this call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| txid | Yes | ||
| network | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive; the description does not contradict them. It adds the operational context that a backend is required and that fetching and decoding happen together, but it does not disclose failure modes or further behavioral details.
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 compact and front-loaded: a purpose statement, a one-sentence prerequisite, and a concise Args block. Every line contributes useful information with no filler.
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 two-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers the operation, both parameters, and the backend prerequisite. It is slightly incomplete in not guiding the agent toward sibling tools such as get_raw_transaction or decode_raw_transaction, but nothing essential for invoking the tool is missing.
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%, and the description fully compensates by documenting both parameters: txid must be a 64-hex-character string, and network overrides the server's network. This goes well beyond the schema's bare string/null types.
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 and resource: 'Fetch and decode a transaction by txid.' This clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from siblings like get_raw_transaction or decode_raw_transaction, which focus on raw or decoded-only views.
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?
Implies usage when a decoded transaction is needed and gives the prerequisite 'Needs a backend.' However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over sibling tools or when not to use it, leaving alternative selection to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.