Retrieve the state and details of a transaction using Solana trx ID

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description adds no behavioral traits beyond this, such as rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'state and details' entail (e.g., confirmation status, metadata). However, it does not contradict annotations, so it meets the lower bar with annotations present but adds minimal context.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action. However, it lacks structure (e.g., no separation of purpose from usage) and is overly brief, missing opportunities to add value without verbosity. It earns a 4 for zero waste but loses points for under-specification in a tool-rich context.

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 one parameter with full schema coverage and readOnlyHint annotation, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema and siblings like 'get_wallet_history', it should clarify return values (e.g., transaction status, timestamps) and differentiate from other tools. It meets basic needs but leaves gaps in a complex server environment.

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%, with the parameter 'trxID' documented as 'The transaction ID'. The description adds no meaning beyond this, such as format examples (e.g., base58 string) or validation rules. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to heavily.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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 alternatives. Given siblings like 'get_wallet_history' (which might list transactions) and 'send_money' (which might create transactions), the description offers no context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. It merely states what the tool does without addressing when it's appropriate.

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