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 read-only safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'exactly one identifier' constraint, which is useful, but it does not disclose behavior on errors, missing identifiers, or both identifiers being supplied. This is acceptable given the annotation coverage but not rich.

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 front-loads the read-only safety cue and packs in the essential identifier constraint with no filler. Every word earns its place.

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 retrieval tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly. It states the operation, the resource, and the exact identifier requirement, covering the main ambiguity created by the schema's missing required fields.

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 compensate. It does by clarifying that zenId and merchantTransactionId are alternative identifiers and that exactly one must be provided. This is high-value semantic information missing from the schema, though it stops short of explaining the format or provenance of each ID in detail.

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 ('retrieve') and resource ('transaction'), and further narrows scope by requiring exactly one ZEN ID or merchant transaction ID. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_payment_link and get_payout, which target different resources.

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: use this when you need a transaction and have one of the two accepted identifiers. It also communicates a key constraint ('exactly one'), though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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