Get Transactions By IDs

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, and the description adds real value on top: it discloses the batch semantics, the "settled" filter, and the return envelope shape with a cross-reference to get_transactions so per-entry shape is inferable. It omits behavior for unknown/nonexistent ids and any batch-size cap, which would be the remaining behavioral gaps.

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?

Three short sentences, with the core action front-loaded and the usage hint immediately after. The return-shape sentence is partially redundant with the output schema, which is the only mild inefficiency.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with an output schema and a readOnly annotation, the description covers what it does, when to use it, and what comes back. Only limits (max ids, unknown-id handling, result ordering) are absent, which is a modest but real gap for a batch API.

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 coverage is 100% and the single `ids` array is documented as "List of Akahu transaction ids," so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates the list-of-ids idea and adds no detail on ordering, duplicates, or a maximum batch length — baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("batch-fetch settled transactions by their ids") with the scoping qualifier "settled" and "in one request," which distinguishes it from txn_get_transaction (single), txn_get_transactions (list/filter), and txn_get_pending_transactions. An agent can route to it without opening any schema.

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?

"Useful when you have a list of transaction ids (e.g. from a prior query) and want to inspect them together" gives a concrete triggering condition and a common source of the ids. It stops short of naming the alternatives it supersedes (e.g. looping txn_get_transaction vs. txn_search_transactions), so it is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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