Get 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 of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'fetch' without noting whether the operation is read-only, what the response contains, whether the transaction must be confirmed, or any error conditions (e.g., not found). The description adds no insight beyond the tool name, which is inadequate for a core RPC method.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words, and the core action is front-loaded. However, it is so brief that it becomes under-specification rather than genuine conciseness—important operational details are omitted. A 4 would require adding at least a key behavioral note without bloating the text; here the brevity sacrifices utility.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and two required parameters, the description is critically thin. An agent cannot know what fields the response will include, whether it returns a transaction object or a confirmation status, or how failures (e.g., unknown hash) are handled. With siblings like rpc_get_transaction_receipt, the lack of guidance on scope is a significant gap. This is far from complete for a practical RPC tool.

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 50%, with chainId already documented in the schema. The description's 'by hash' implicitly indicates txHash is a transaction hash, but this is already evident from the parameter name and the pattern regex. No additional semantics are provided for txHash, such as format details, hexadecimal case sensitivity, or how it relates to chainId. Since coverage is low and the description does not compensate, the parameter explanation is insufficient.

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 'Fetch a transaction by hash' clearly identifies the verb (fetch), resource (transaction), and key identifier (hash). It is specific enough to understand the core function, but it does not differentiate it from sibling tools like rpc_get_transaction_receipt or rpc_trace_transaction, which also operate on transactions.

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 tool versus alternatives. No mention of when a receipt or trace would be more appropriate, or any prerequisites like chain support. The only implicit hint is the 'by hash' phrase, which does not distinguish usage scenarios. This leaves the agent to infer from tool names alone.

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