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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and explicitly notes 'no API call, no credits consumed,' which is key behavioral information. It also discloses detailed content such as retry strategy, HMAC security, and rate-limit penalty multipliers, going well beyond a generic 'returns info' statement.

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 front-loaded with the critical 'no API call, no credits consumed' caveat and uses a compact bullet list. Each bullet covers a distinct action without wasted prose, making it highly scannable for an agent.

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 reference-documentation tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is complete enough: it defines all five actions and gives sufficient detail about their content. It also clarifies side effects (none) and cost implications (none), covering the main contextual risks.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds significant meaning by explaining each allowed action enum value in detail (e.g., callbacks covers URL requirements, 5 retries, HMAC). This transforms enum names into actionable context and compensates fully beyond the schema's short parameter descriptions.

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 states this is CryptoAPIs reference documentation with no API call or credits consumed, and enumerates five specific topics (blockchains, errors, credits, callbacks, limits). This clearly identifies it as an informational tool distinct from domain siblings like aml.

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 bulleted actions give clear contexts for when to use the tool, such as looking up error codes, credit structures, callback mechanics, or rate limits. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of a full when/when-not specification.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses credit costs per action and blockchain, which is a trait beyond the schema, but does not state read-only nature, rate limits, pagination, or what each action returns.

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 purpose and actions are front-loaded, and the credit table, while long, provides actionable cost data. Some repetition in the credits section is minor.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return values for each action and behavior like authentication or error handling. It covers costs but leaves the agent without enough to interpret results or handle all four actions confidently.

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 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond repeating the action enum values; blockchain, network, and transactionHash receive no extra meaning.

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?

States a specific verb (get) and the resources (transaction details, internal transactions, token transfers, logs) scoped by transaction hash, and lists the four actions clearly. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like transactions_data_utxo, though the 'EVM' in the name implies chain scope.

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 choose one action over another, nor when to use this tool versus the UTXO/Solana/XRP/Kaspa siblings. Only an implicit 'use it to get transaction data' is present.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses credit cost and where actual credits appear, and implies a read-only lookup, but omits auth requirements, rate limits, and response behavior.

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 purpose and network are front-loaded in one sentence, followed by concise credit information. The leading tool-name restatement is slightly redundant, but the overall definition is compact.

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 lookup with 100% schema coverage, the description gives enough to invoke the tool correctly. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it does not describe the response structure or operational constraints an agent might need.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description mentions transaction ID and mainnet but adds no format or usage detail beyond the structured fields.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: get transaction details by transaction ID. It scopes to Kaspa mainnet, which differentiates it from sibling transaction tools for UTXO, EVM, Solana, and XRP.

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 does not explain when to use this tool instead of the sibling transaction-data tools. It only states the network is mainnet, leaving alternative selection to the agent's inference.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does add genuinely useful non-schema context — a 90-credit cost, the caveat that credits are indicative, and that actual spend is in response headers — but it omits error behavior (e.g. unknown hash) and any rate-limit or auth detail.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose before network list and the credits boilerplate. The credits disclaimer is somewhat boilerplate-heavy but earns its place by setting cost expectations for a paid call.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should say more about the returned transaction shape and error cases. It covers purpose, supported networks, and cost adequately, but leaves the response contract to inference.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only restates the network enum and the hash meaning, adding no syntax or format detail beyond it; baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'get transaction details by transaction hash (signature)', and the Solana suffix distinguishes it from the sibling chain variants (utxo, evm, xrp, kaspa). Clear, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The only routing cue is the tool name's chain suffix; nothing tells the agent to prefer this over transactions_data_evm for a Solana/EVM ambiguity, nor any prerequisite or failure conditions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It provides useful cost information (credits per action/blockchain, indicators, headers) but omits whether the operation is read-only, idempotent, or requires special authorization. Some behavioral context is present but key traits are missing.

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?

Purpose and key lists are front-loaded, but the credit list is duplicated for both actions despite identical values and the disclaimer could be trimmed. Moderately structured with noticeable 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers actions, supported chains, networks, and costs. It still lacks guidance on action selection and expected response differences between the two actions, which are important for a two-action tool. Adequate but not fully 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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description repeats the action, blockchain, and network enums and adds credit costs per combination, which gives extra meaning for action selection. However, it does not clarify transactionHash format or context usage beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb 'get' and resources 'transaction details or raw transaction data by hash', and lists supported blockchains and networks. This indirectly distinguishes it from siblings like transactions_data_evm, but does not explicitly name alternatives or scope exclusions. Clear but lacks direct sibling differentiation.

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 lists the two actions but provides no guidance on when to use each, nor when to prefer this tool over sibling transaction tools. No prerequisites or when-not conditions are given. Essentially no usage guidelines beyond the action enumeration.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses cost (110 credits, indicative, returned in response headers) and the supported networks, which is useful context, but says nothing about auth requirements, error cases, or whether results are cached/finalized.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and resource, then networks and cost. The credit boilerplate is slightly verbose but earns its place by disclosing billing behavior.

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?

A read-only lookup with 100% parameter documentation and no output schema; the description covers the two things the schema cannot (supported networks and cost). Nothing essential for a correct call is missing, though chain-routing guidance would fully close the gap.

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 100% and the enum for network is declared, so the schema fully documents all three parameters. The description only restates 'transaction hash' and the network list, adding no syntax or format details beyond the structured fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'get transaction details by transaction hash' on the XRP network. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the chain-specific siblings (evm, solana, utxo, kaspa), though the name and 'XRP' label imply the chain routing.

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 when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative routing guidance. With four sibling transaction tools for other chains, the agent gets no explicit statement that this is the XRP-chain variant and should be selected only for XRP hashes.

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