Get transaction receipt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only mentions a preference for Explorer decoded receipt data, which is a minor behavioral hint. It does not disclose potential limitations, authentication needs, or other important traits.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences that convey the essential information. There is no wasted text 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 has a single parameter and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose and a behavioral preference. However, mentioning the return format or an example would make it slightly more robust.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for the txHash parameter, and the description adds no explanation of what txHash represents (though it is implicit). For agents, explicitly stating 'the transaction hash' would be helpful.

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 retrieves receipt logs, status, and gas usage, and mentions a preference for decoded data. It effectively communicates the tool's purpose, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_transaction_evidence or get_session_receipt_logs.

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 when to use the tool ('use this for receipt logs...'), but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. Given the many sibling tools, more detailed usage context would improve selection.

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