トランザクションを読む

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds that it cross-references the receipt and returns human-readable fields, which is useful but doesn't detail any constraints like requirements for the network parameter or handling of pending transactions. With annotations providing the safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 concise, with two sentences that pack substantial information about what the tool returns and its analogy to Etherscan. It is front-loaded with the main verb and resource, and every sentence contributes value. No wasted words.

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 the tool's moderate complexity, the description covers the key outputs and the analogy to Etherscan. With no output schema, the description should clarify return values, and it does list the fields. However, it does not mention edge cases like pending transactions or error conditions, but for a read-only tool with good annotations, this is acceptable. A score of 3 reflects that it is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 the schema already explains both parameters (hash and network). The description mentions 'network' implicitly through 'Etherscan' context but adds no extra syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema fully covers parameters.

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's purpose: to read a transaction and its receipt, returning sender, destination, amount, gas, actual fee, success/failure, and calldata function selector in human-readable form. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on transaction-level details, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 implies the tool is for reading transaction details, similar to viewing Etherscan, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like read_block or call_contract. It mentions it reads both transaction and receipt, providing some context, but no exclusions or alternative tool names.

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