Look up a transaction

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 discloses the cost ($0.01 USDG) and the 'decoded' nature of the output, but does not mention authentication, error cases, rate limits, or whether it is strictly read-only beyond the 'look up' verb.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by the cost. Every word earns its place with no 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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, so the description should explain what 'decoded transaction details' contains. It does not specify fields like status, sender, recipient, value, or gas, leaving the return value under-specified.

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 adds meaning by clarifying that the 'hash' parameter is a Robinhood Chain transaction hash, but it does not provide examples or additional details beyond what the pattern already implies.

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 title 'Look up a transaction' and description 'Decoded transaction details for any Robinhood Chain tx hash' clearly state a specific action on a specific resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like broadcast or send by focusing on reading/decoding transaction details.

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 clearly implies the use case: when you need decoded details for a Robinhood Chain transaction hash. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous among the sibling tools.

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