Retrieve a single transaction's details, including amount, counterparty, source category, and linked card, by providing its transaction ID. Resolves the need to view specific transaction information.
Get one transaction (amount, counterparty, source category, linked card if any).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| transaction_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the returned fields and the conditional nature of the linked card. However, it says nothing about not-found behavior, authentication needs, or whether the operation is strictly read-only, leaving the safety profile inferred only from the verb 'get'.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The core action 'Get one transaction' appears first, and the parenthetical adds useful return-field detail without bloating the text.
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 low-complexity single-parameter getter with no output schema, the description provides enough return-field detail to set expectations and enough action clarity to call the tool. It falls short of full completeness by not addressing invalid IDs or explicitly routing between this and the list-transactions sibling, but these are minor gaps for this simple tool.
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 0%, so the description should compensate by explaining transaction_id. It does not explicitly describe the parameter; the meaning is only inferred from the parameter name and the phrase 'one transaction'. This is minimal compensation for a single required parameter.
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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get one transaction'. It also enumerates key returned fields, which clarifies what the tool does beyond merely repeating its name. The word 'one' distinguishes it from sibling list-style tools like lemma_list_transactions.
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 use when a single transaction is needed, contrasted with listing transactions. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over lemma_list_transactions or other getters, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage context is present but only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.