getOneTransaction

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is already known. The description does not add additional behavioral details such as error handling, rate limits, response format, or authentication nuances. It does not contradict the annotation, but it also does not go beyond what annotations already convey.

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 of five words, front-loading the key action and condition. There is no wasteful wording; every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 a simple read-only lookup with three parameters, one constrained by a const, and one described in the schema. The description plus annotations cover the basic use case, but authToken remains undefined, there is no output schema, and no mention of what happens if the transaction is not found. The description is minimal and does not add meaningful context beyond the schema.

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 only 33% — only txHash has a description. The tool description merely reinforces txHash via 'by its hash' and provides no clarification for authToken or chainName. Given the low schema coverage, the description should compensate, but it fails to explain these parameters, leaving their semantics unclear.

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 ('Get') with a clear resource ('single transaction') and a specific scoping condition ('by its hash'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like getBulkTransactions, getRecentTransactions, or getTransactionsForAddress. The qualifier 'single' and the hash condition leave no doubt about the tool's specific purpose.

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 usage context: when you have a specific transaction hash and want exactly one transaction. This provides clear context without explicitly naming alternatives or exclusions. It lacks an explicit 'when-not-to-use' or alternative tool reference, but the 'by its hash' condition is a strong usage signal.

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