Canonical chain plus any competing orphan blocks around a height. 'to' is the highest height in the window (defaults to the current tip); lower it to browse older history down to the genesis block. limit 10..500.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| limit | No |
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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools are clearly grouped by prefix (network_, pool_, haveno_, reorg), but there is overlap: get_block vs search_block both return block details, price vs haveno_book both expose the current Haveno order book, and chain_fork_window, recent_orphans, and reorgs all touch chain-fork/orphan phenomena. The descriptions help separate them, but an agent could easily pick the wrong one.
The dominant convention is a domain_noun pattern (network_hashrate, pool_distribution, haveno_premium, chain_provenance), which is predictable and readable. Minor deviations like get_block, search_block, price, and reorgs break the pattern slightly, but not enough to cause confusion.
18 tools is on the heavier side but reasonable for a metrics/analytics server covering network health, mining pools, reorgs, blocks, and Haveno market data. A few endpoints could potentially be consolidated, but each tool generally earns its place.
The surface covers current network state, historical time series, block lookup, orphan/reorg analysis, pool attribution, and Haveno market data, which is solid for a Monero metrics server. Minor gaps like transaction-level lookup or a direct chain-range endpoint are absent, but agents can work around them using the provided block and fork-window tools.