sc_transaction

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Get details' clearly conveys a non-mutating read operation, but there is no mention of permission requirements, response behavior, or any edge cases. This is adequate for a simple getter but not richly transparent.

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 clear sentence with no filler. It immediately states the action, the object, the scope, and the lookup key, making it easy for an agent to parse.

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 and an output schema exists, so return-value details are not required. However, with no annotations and no usage guidance for the optional portfolio_id or the distinction from sc_transactions, the description leaves some gaps that an agent would need to infer.

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 clarifies that transaction_id is the lookup key via 'by ID', but it does not explain the optional portfolio_id parameter or its purpose. Only one of two parameters receives semantic meaning.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get details for a single Scalable Capital broker transaction by ID.' It clearly distinguishes this singular fetch-by-ID tool from the sibling sc_transactions list tool, even without naming it explicitly.

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 fetching one transaction when its ID is known, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sc_transactions or how portfolio_id relates to use. Usage context is present but not elaborated.

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