Транзакция по идентификатору (публичный API)

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add a genuinely useful disclosure: the commission field is named totalCommission here but commission in the webhook payload. However, it says nothing about authentication, error behavior, response format, or other operational traits, leaving a thin behavioral profile.

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?

Two compact sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler; the webhook discrepancy note is placed second and earns its place. Slightly under-specified overall, but as far as economy of words it is tight.

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 simple single-parameter fetch with the param fully documented, the description covers the essential use (supply an ID, get a transaction card) and flags the one likely-to-matter naming gotcha. Yet with no annotations and no output schema, it omits any return shape, error, or auth detail — adequate, not complete.

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% — the single required parameter id is already documented as 'UUID транзакции'. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas 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?

The description says only 'Карточка транзакции' (transaction card), a noun phrase rather than a clear verb+resource statement; purpose actually comes from the title 'Транзакция по идентификатору (публичный API)'. The description does convey a transaction-fetch operation but offers no differentiation from the sibling wata_transaction_get, which appears to perform a near-identical retrieval.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wata_transaction_get or wata_acq_transaction_find. The webhook note is about field naming, not usage selection. There is no when/when-not, no prerequisites, and no sibling routing.

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