get_transaction

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It helpfully discloses the return shape (from, to, value, blockNumber, gas, gasPrice, truncated input), which implies a read-only operation, but it says nothing about behavior when the hash is not found, network defaults, or the truncation policy beyond noting 'input truncated'.

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 that front-loads the purpose and then lists the returned fields efficiently. Every clause carries information, though the parenthetical field list is dense.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema tool the description partially compensates by naming the returned fields. However it omits error behavior, network scoping, and any note on how it differs from get_transaction_receipt, leaving notable gaps.

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 both parameters (txHash format, network enum of mainnet/kairos with default) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds only 'by hash', which duplicates the schema rather than extending it; baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb (get) and resource (transaction by hash) and even enumerates the summary fields returned. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_transaction_receipt, leaving an agent to infer that this is the summary-level rather than receipt-level view.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus get_transaction_receipt, get_account_transactions, or the other siblings. The 'by hash' phrasing implies the input mode but no context, prerequisites, or exclusions are stated.

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