Get transaction evidence

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states that the tool combines indexed data, receipt data, and falls back to live RPC if available. This provides useful behavior context. However, it does not mention any potential side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits.

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 concise at two sentences, front-loading the usage context. Every sentence adds value without 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 has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does. However, it does not describe the return format or typical fields, which could leave the agent uncertain about what to expect.

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 'txHash'. The description does not add parameter-level details beyond the schema. The parameter name and pattern make it self-explanatory, but the description could clarify expected format or examples.

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 tool's purpose: to retrieve what happened in a specific transaction. It mentions combining multiple data sources (indexed Explorer data, receipt data, live RPC fallback), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_transaction_receipt' which only fetch receipt data.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when the user asks what happened in a specific transaction,' providing clear context. It mentions data sources but does not explicitly exclude cases where simpler tools would suffice, though the context implies this is the comprehensive option.

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