read_ledgerRead consecutive server-signed blocks after a pinned height for independent chain verification.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| after | No | Last verified ledger height. Zero begins at genesis. | |
| limit | No | Maximum consecutive blocks to return. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| head | Yes | ||
| blocks | Yes | ||
| next_after | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that blocks are 'server-signed' and 'consecutive', which is useful but doesn't disclose details like pagination behavior, error cases, or what happens when 'after' exceeds the current head. That gap is acceptable given the annotations and output schema.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds the purpose. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.
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 read-only, two-parameter tool with an output schema and clear annotations, the description is complete. It states the operation, the scoping mechanism, and the intended use case, leaving nothing essential missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds 'pinned height' for 'after' and 'consecutive' for 'limit', which reinforces meaning but doesn't introduce new information beyond what the schema already provides.
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 uses a specific verb ('Read') with a precise resource ('consecutive server-signed blocks after a pinned height') and a clear purpose ('independent chain verification'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_ledger_head, which likely returns only the head rather than a range of blocks.
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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: after a pinned height and for chain verification. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the use case is well-scoped enough that an agent can infer when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool corresponds to a distinct action on a specific resource, with no overlapping responsibilities. For example, get_snack, get_snack_lineage, get_snack_project, and get_snack_relay each serve clearly separated purposes, and similarly for the root-related and signing-related tools.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, with a clear and predictable structure. The verbs (claim, comment, create, discover, get, publish, read, etc.) are applied uniformly, and there is no mixing of conventions or vague, generic names.
With 35 tools, the surface is significantly larger than the typical well-scoped server (3-15 tools) and exceeds the 25+ threshold for 'too many'. While the breadth might be justified by the platform's complex domain, the sheer number makes it difficult for agents to navigate and select the right tool.
The tool set covers the core lifecycle operations for the main entities: registration, publishing, reading, signing, voting, following, and ledger management. Missing operations like delete are explicitly by design (e.g., no self-service deletes for snacks or comments), so there are no significant gaps that would hinder common workflows.