Get the current block heights: tip height, stable height (finalized), and topoheight (canonical ordering) via DERO.GetHeight.
When to call: when you need a quick height snapshot without the full chain-info payload. PREFER dero_get_info when you also need network, version, or difficulty.
Input Requirements: none.
Output: { height, stableheight, topoheight }.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's safe. The description adds that it's a 'quick' snapshot and specifies the output fields, providing useful but not critical context beyond annotations.
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?
Four concise sentences with no fluff: purpose, usage guidance, input requirements, and output format. Highly efficient.
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 zero parameters and a simple output, the description fully covers what the tool does, how to use it, and what to expect. It even references the sibling tool. No major gaps.
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?
No parameters exist, and the description states 'Input Requirements: none', which is clear. Schema coverage is 100% so no additional information is needed.
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 it retrieves current block heights (tip, stable, topoheight) via DERO.GetHeight. It uses a specific verb 'get' and resource 'block heights', and distinguishes itself from the sibling 'dero_get_info' which provides more 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?
Explicitly tells when to call ('when you need a quick height snapshot without the full chain-info payload') and when not to ('PREFER dero_get_info when you also need network, version, or difficulty'). This is excellent guidance with alternative naming.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose, with detailed descriptions that specify when to call it and how it differs from similar tools. Composite tools are well-defined, overlapping concerns are minimized.
Tool names follow a general pattern: 'dero_' for core daemon RPC wrappers, 'tela_' for TELA-specific composites, and descriptive names for other composites. While mostly consistent, there are exceptions like 'audit_chain_artifact_claim' and 'dero_durl_to_scid' breaking the pattern slightly.
With 32 tools, the server is comprehensive but slightly heavy. However, each tool serves a specific need in the DERO ecosystem, covering chain queries, docs, TELA, and composite analyses. The count is justifiable given the domain breadth.
The tool set covers core chain operations, documentation, TELA app lifecycle, and common analytical tasks. Minor gaps exist, such as lack of wallet interaction tools or transaction submission, but these are outside the apparent read-only/analysis scope.
