transaction_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool is a read operation returning comprehensive data, but does not mention error handling, authentication needs, or what happens if the txid is invalid. This is adequate but not fully 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 consists of two sentences that front-load the purpose and key details. Every word is essential and no extraneous information is included.

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 the tool's simplicity (one input, no output schema), the description covers the purpose and the type of data returned. It does not mention system prerequisites or edge cases, but remains reasonably complete for a basic get 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'txid'. The description adds meaning by calling it a 'transaction ID' and explaining its purpose, which compensates for the schema gap, though it does not describe format or constraints.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'detailed information about a specific Bitcoin transaction' with the input 'transaction ID (txid)'. It differentiates from sibling tools like 'tx_raw_decode_get' and 'tx_raw_hex_get' by specifying it retrieves comprehensive data including inputs, outputs, fees, and confirmation status.

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 this is the general-purpose tool for transaction details but does not explicitly state when to use alternative sibling tools. It could provide more guidance on exclusions or prerequisites.

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