get_transaction

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds some detail about the return fields (sender, recipient, value, data), but omits potentially important behaviors such as whether pending transactions are supported, error conditions, or the full set of fields included in 'more'. This is moderate transparency, not comprehensive.

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 primary action and complemented by a brief list of return fields. Every sentence serves a purpose with no extraneous content, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 description is adequate for a simple lookup tool but lacks completeness: it does not enumerate all return fields beyond the initial examples, nor does it clarify multi-network support or the default network (BSC), which is only in the schema. For an agent, the vague 'and more' and absence of output schema leave uncertainty about the full response shape.

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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (txHash and network), including default and example. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema offers, so it neither enhances nor detracts from the baseline score for high schema coverage.

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 information for a specific transaction by hash, including fields like sender, recipient, value, and data. This is a specific verb+resource and the purpose is unambiguous, though it does not explicitly differentiate from chain-specific transaction tools like aptos_get_transaction or sui_get_transaction.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many chain-specific transaction lookup tools listed as siblings. The description does not mention that the network parameter allows cross-chain usage or suggest alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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