monerometrics

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

With no annotations, the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It explains the semantics of 'to' (highest height, defaults to current tip, can be lowered) and the range for 'limit', but it does not describe the return value structure, ordering, or how orphan blocks are identified. This leaves significant ambiguity for an agent.

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 two sentences, with the first stating the core purpose and the second explaining both parameters. It is concise, front-loaded, and every word adds value.

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?

This is a moderately complex tool with two optional parameters and no output schema. The description gives the purpose and parameter behavior but omits the return value format, ordering, and any edge cases. Given no annotations or output schema, more detail is needed for full completeness.

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 must compensate. It does so effectively: 'to' is explained as the highest height in the window with a default of the current tip and the ability to browse older history; 'limit' is given a range of 10..500. These add meaning beyond the schema's simple types and defaults.

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 defines what the tool returns: 'Canonical chain plus any competing orphan blocks around a height.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_block and recent_orphans by focusing on a window of blocks around a height. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'returns,' making the purpose slightly implicit.

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 provides usage details for parameters ('lower it to browse older history') but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as recent_orphans or reorgs. It does not mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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 carries the burden. It discloses the four attribution categories and the valid window options, which adds useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention output format, data freshness, or any limitations, leaving some behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words. It packs the attribution methods and window options efficiently without 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides the key conceptual information: what attribution provenance means and the available windows. It is nearly complete, though it could add a note about the return type or data structure to be fully self-contained.

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 schema only defines 'window' as a string with a default, but the description enriches it by listing the exact valid values (1h,6h,24h,48h,7d). Since schema coverage is 0%, this description effectively compensates and gives the agent the necessary enumeration.

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 explains that the tool shows how mining-pool attribution was established, listing the four attribution methods. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pool_distribution or pool_sources by focusing on provenance methodology, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'shows'.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pool_distribution or pool_sources. The description implies that it is used to understand attribution provenance, but does not state explicit use cases, prerequisites, or alternative comparisons.

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 transparently discloses the return content and the 64-character hash constraint, giving clear expectations. It does not mention edge cases like invalid hash handling, but no critical behavior is hidden.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the function and packs all essential facts without redundancy or extraneous detail.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, parameter constraint, and return content. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke 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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by specifying that the hash must be 64 characters, which adds crucial validation context not present in the schema. It does not specify encoding or case-sensitivity, but the core requirement is established.

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 specifically states 'Full detail for one block by its 64-character block hash' and lists the exact fields returned, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_block. It clearly identifies the resource (block) and the selecting argument (hash).

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 clearly implies use when you have a 64-character block hash and need full block details. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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 must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the time-series nature and available windows, but does not describe the return format, aggregation method, or whether the data is point-in-time or historical. The ambiguous use of 'variance' adds confusion rather than clarity.

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 sentence that packs the essential purpose and window options without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and 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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, but the description still leaves ambiguity around 'variance' and omits any description of the return shape. For a focused tool, the missing behavioral detail makes the description incomplete.

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 schema provides no description for the 'window' parameter and no enum. The description lists the valid window values (1h,24h,7d,30d,90d,1y,5y), which adds meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain the semantics of each window, but it partially compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 names the specific resource (block-time variance) and clarifies the unit (seconds between blocks), distinguishing it from sibling network tools. However, 'variance' is ambiguously used, leaving some doubt about whether the output is a statistical variance or a time series of block times.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like network_hashrate or network_mempool. The only usage-related info is the list of valid window values, which is more parameter semantics than strategic tool selection.

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 carries the full burden. It discloses the unit and available windows but does not describe the response format, whether data is aggregated, or any other behavioral traits such as pagination or rate limits. This leaves some ambiguity for a time-series tool.

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, concise sentence that conveys the tool's purpose, unit, and valid parameter values with zero redundancy. Every phrase adds valuable information.

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?

This is a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema. The description covers purpose, unit, and window validation, which is adequate for basic usage. However, it does not specify the structure of the returned time series (e.g., fields like timestamp and emission), which would improve completeness.

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 schema only defines 'window' with a default and type, but no description or enum. The tool description compensates fully by listing all accepted values (1h, 24h, 7d, 30d, 90d, 1y, 5y), providing essential semantics 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?

The description clearly states the tool provides a 'Block reward / emission time series (XMR per block)' with valid window options. It lacks an explicit verb but the resource and scope are specific, and no sibling tool covers emission data, distinguishing it effectively.

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 usage by listing time windows (1h, 24h, etc.) and the unit (XMR per block), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No sibling tools are referenced as alternatives.

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?

The description only mentions the valid windows ('1h,24h,7d,30d,90d,1y,5y'), which is useful but minimal. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, yet it doesn't explain the return format, units, or whether it's a read-only operation. It implies a time series but omits important details.

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 immediately state the purpose and the parameter options. There is no wasted wording, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 simplicity of the tool (1 parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but not complete. It explains what the tool returns (a time series) and the window options, but doesn't describe the response shape, units, or any behavior like pagination. This is a clear gap but not critical for such a 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?

The schema has a single parameter 'window' with a default but no enum values. The description explicitly lists all valid window values ('1h,24h,7d,30d,90d,1y,5y'), providing essential information that the schema lacks. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 'Network hashrate time series', which clearly identifies the resource and the fact that it provides data over time. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like network_blocktime and network_emission by focusing specifically on hashrate. However, it lacks a verb, so it's not explicitly saying 'get' or 'return'.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where another tool might be more appropriate. The description simply states what it does without situational context.

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 carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation and lists the intended data, but does not explain potential nuances like indexing lag, whether the data is a snapshot, or error conditions. It is adequate but not rich.

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 that uses a colon to enumerate the key information. Every word earns its place without redundancy or fluff.

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?

The tool is simple with no output schema, so the description must explain what is returned. It lists the metrics, but it is a fragment rather than a complete sentence and does not specify the return structure or how it relates to sibling tools. It covers the essentials but leaves some 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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but none is needed since the schema has no properties.

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 that the tool provides the current Monero network state, listing specific metrics (height, difficulty, hashrate, mempool size). It is not a tautology and differentiates from siblings like network_hashrate and network_mempool by presenting a combined snapshot, though it lacks a strong verb.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as network_hashrate or network_mempool. It does not mention any exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer use cases.

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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the output is a time series of pending transaction counts, but does not mention return format, aggregation details, or any operational constraints like rate limits or data availability.

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 sentence that leads with the core purpose and then lists the window options. Every word earns its place with no unnecessary 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 one-parameter read tool, the description provides the essential output type and parameter options. It lacks a bit of detail on response shape, but the complexity is low and the description is generally sufficient.

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 the schema has 0% description coverage, the description explicitly enumerates all valid window values ('1h,24h,7d,30d,90d,1y,5y'), which fully compensates for the schema's lack of parameter details and adds clear meaning beyond the generic 'string' type.

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 identifies the resource ('Mempool size time series') and metric ('number of pending transactions'), distinguishing it from sibling network stats. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'returns', so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only lists valid window values, not the context for selecting this tool or excluding others.

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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates the key outputs (block share, largest-pool share, Nakamoto coefficient) and accepted windows, but omits details like return format, whether data is live or historical, and how the largest-pool share is expressed. This is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 sentence that covers purpose, outputs, and parameters without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and every clause adds value, making it an exemplar of concise, informative tool documentation.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description explains the output components and parameter options. However, it does not specify the exact structure of the per-pool share list or whether shares are percentages, leaving minor ambiguity about the return format. Overall, it is nearly complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 only declares 'window' as a string with default '24h' and no description. The description compensates fully by listing the valid window values (1h,6h,24h,48h,7d), effectively providing an enum and clarifying the unit of the parameter, which is essential for correct invocation.

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 exactly what the tool does: it provides mining-pool distribution over a window, including block share per pool, largest-pool share, and the Nakamoto coefficient. It names a specific resource and metrics, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like pool_sources.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pool_sources or other network tools. The description does not mention use cases, exclusions, or selection criteria, leaving the agent without context for choosing this tool over siblings.

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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only that the tool provides reachability status, without mentioning whether it is a read-only operation, what it does with external APIs, or any potential side effects or requirements. This is minimal additional value beyond the tool name.

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, concise sentence that directly communicates the tool's purpose without extraneous information. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient and clear.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns, but it only says 'Reachability status' without specifying the format or structure (e.g., list, object, per-pool fields). The tool is simple, but the lack of return-value detail leaves the agent under-informed.

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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is complete. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, the description need not add parameter semantics to be valuable. The description doesn't contradict or confuse any parameter information.

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 provides 'Reachability status of each mining-pool API used for block attribution,' which is a specific resource and scope. While it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list,' the intent is clear and it distinguishes from sibling tools like pool_distribution by focusing on API reachability rather than distribution.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or context in which this tool is appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage from the description alone.

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 adds some behavioral context by mentioning the inclusion of both official spot and Haveno DEX reference prices, but does not disclose whether the price is live, cached, or how the response is structured. For a simple read-only price tool, this is moderate but not deeply transparent.

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 that immediately states what the tool does and its key differentiator. Every word earns its place with no filler 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?

With no output schema, the description should clarify the return structure, but it only implies the presence of two price references. It does not specify the currency, units, or exact response format, leaving some ambiguity for a tool that is otherwise simple.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter syntax or meaning. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description adds no conflicting info.

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 returns the current Monero (XMR) price and specifies two distinct data sources (official spot price and Haveno DEX reference). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which all focus on blockchain/network data rather than market prices.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose: this is the obvious tool for price queries among the siblings, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it vs alternatives, nor any exclusions or 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?

Without annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It mentions that both orphan blocks and their canonical counterparts are returned and gives the limit range, but it does not describe the output format, ordering, or any potential side effects. Some context is provided, but not comprehensive.

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, using two short fragments that convey the essential information without any filler. Every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter read tool, the description provides the core purpose and a parameter constraint. However, it lacks usage context, does not describe the return structure, and omits any mention of default behavior beyond the schema default. It is adequate but not 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?

The only parameter, limit, is given a range (1..50) in the description, which adds value beyond the schema. However, the exact meaning of 'limit' (e.g., number of pairs, number of orphans) is not explicitly stated, and there is no further explanation to compensate for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 returns recent orphan blocks along with their canonical counterpart at the same height. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_block and reorgs, though it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as reorgs or chain_fork_window. The description only states what it returns, with no mention of scenarios or exclusions.

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 provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output ordering (most recent first) and the included fields (fork point, depth, affected transactions), giving useful behavioral context. It doesn't specify pagination or limits, but the description adds meaningful transparency beyond a bare 'shows reorgs'.

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, information-dense sentence. It front-loads the core resource (Monero chain reorganizations), then specifies the ordering and key fields, with no wasted words.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description provides a clear picture of what is returned: reorgs with fork point, depth, and affected transactions, in reverse chronological order. It is a simple read-only list; it could be more explicit about the return type (e.g., array) but is adequate for its complexity.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to explain about parameters, and the schema is wholly empty without any property definitions. The description correctly focuses on the output rather than inputs.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: listing detected Monero chain reorganizations with specific fields (fork point, depth, affected transactions) and ordering (most recent first). This distinguishes it from siblings like reorg_stats and recent_orphans by focusing on individual reorg events with their details.

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 usage when one needs reorg details, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like reorg_stats for aggregated statistics or recent_orphans for orphaned blocks. No exclusions or comparative guidance is provided.

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 full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not state that the tool is read-only or non-mutating, nor does it clarify how 'windows' are defined or selected given the absence of parameters. The description lists metrics but leaves window semantics and side-effect profile unclear.

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 sentence that front-loads the primary action and packs relevant metrics into a readable list. No unnecessary words; every segment adds meaningful detail.

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?

The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameters, so the description is the only source of information. While it explains what metrics are computed, it fails to clarify the meaning of 'windows', the output format, or whether the operation is read-only. This leaves significant gaps for an agent deciding to invoke the 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?

The schema has zero parameters and thus covers all parameter behavior vacuously (100% coverage). The description mentions 'over windows' but does not explain how windows are configured, so it adds no concrete parameter semantics. 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function as aggregating reorg statistics and enumerates specific metrics (counts, average and maximum depth, affected transactions). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'reorgs' or 'recent_orphans' that likely list events rather than aggregate them.

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 phrase 'over windows' implies the tool is for windowed aggregation, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or provide exclusion criteria. Guidance is only implied, not explicit.

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 carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add that the result includes canonical/orphan status, which is useful, but it does not mention error handling, return format boundaries, or whether the operation is read-only. The description is informative but incomplete.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every clause adds useful information. There is no fluff or wasted words.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials: what query to provide and what the response contains. It lacks explicit error behavior, but overall it is reasonably complete for this complexity.

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 0%, so the description must explain the query parameter. It does this well by specifying that it can be a height (a number) or a 64-character hash, adding meaning beyond the raw schema. A 5 would require more detail on exact string formatting, but this is sufficient.

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 finds a block by height or 64-character hash, down to genesis, and returns detail plus canonical/orphan status. This is a specific verb and resource, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'get_block', so it stops short of a 5.

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 it (when searching by height or hash and needing canonical/orphan status) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Since siblings like 'get_block' exist, the lack of direct comparison leaves usage guidance implied rather than explicit.

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