Детали транзакции

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'full transaction card' but does not explain what that includes, whether any authentication is needed, error scenarios, or the response format. It is a read operation by implication, but specific behavioral traits are absent.

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, short Russian sentence that gets straight to the point. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, and contains no filler or redundancy.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally sufficient. However, it does not mention what 'full transaction card' means nor what output format to expect, leaving room for ambiguity. It is adequate but not rich.

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% for the single 'id' parameter, which is already described as 'transaction identifier'. The description adds only 'by identifier' which does not augment the schema's meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the parameter semantics.

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 action (get) and the resource (transaction) by identifier, and the title 'Детали транзакции' reinforces the purpose. It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools like wata_transactions_list by focusing on a single transaction's detailed card.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wata_transactions_list or wata_transaction_refund. The context of needing a single transaction by ID is implied by the schema, but no explicit exclusions or alternative routing is given.

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