Get Raw Profile

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations—that output is raw Step objects with hash IDs, requiring lookup_text for resolution—which is valuable for setting expectations.

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?

Three sentences efficiently convey purpose, differentiation, and follow-up usage. The most critical information is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explains what the return value looks like (raw Step objects with hash IDs) and how to interpret it (via lookup_text). Combined with clear sibling alternates and full parameter documentation, it provides complete context for a read-only retrieval tool.

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%, with both 'date' and 'txid' having descriptive text. The description does not add any parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 raw, non-decoded profile steps for a transaction, using a specific verb and resource. It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_transaction_detail by contrasting raw vs decoded data, making its purpose 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 explicitly names the alternative tool (get_transaction_detail) and explains when this raw variant is preferable. It also directs users to lookup_text for resolving hash IDs, providing clear usage context and next steps.

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