koios_tx_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It fails to clarify that the listed components (inputs, metadata, assets, etc.) are controlled by opt-in boolean flags; the wording 'including' suggests they are always returned. It also doesn't mention pagination, required hashes, or response shape, making it misleading about default 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with an active verb and object. It is efficient, though 'etc.' is vague. Overall, it is concise and structurally sound for a high-level summary.

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?

Given 13 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is too brief. It doesn't explain that the components are optional flags, nor does it describe pagination or response structure. It leaves significant gaps for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond enumerating some parameter groups (inputs, outputs, metadata, assets) and 'etc.', providing no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already documents.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves detailed transaction information, listing key components like inputs, outputs, metadata, and assets. It distinguishes itself from specialized siblings (e.g., koios_tx_metadata, koios_tx_cbor) by signaling a comprehensive scope. However, it doesn't explicitly mention that the input is transaction hashes, though 'specific transactions' implies it.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is the primary tool for full transaction details but doesn't mention exclusions or alternatives. Given the many sibling tools (e.g., koios_tx_status, koios_tx_outs_epoch), this is a gap.

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