Full detail for one block by its 64-character block hash: height, previous hash, size, difficulty, reward, coinbase, transaction list and merge-mining tags.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hash | Yes | 64-character hexadecimal hash. Example: 418015bb9ae982a1975da7d79277c2705727a56894ba0fb246adaabb1f4632e3 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / hash / descriptionAdded value: +"64-character hexadecimal hash. Example: 418015bb9ae982a1975da7d79277c2705727a56894ba0fb246adaabb1f4632e3"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by enumerating the payload contents (transaction list, merge-mining tags), which hints at a potentially large response, but it says nothing about error behavior for missing hashes or how reorged/orphaned blocks are handled.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by an itemized field list. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded.
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 appropriately compensates by enumerating the returned fields, which is the key missing structured information. The remaining gap is edge-case behavior (invalid length, unknown hash, stale blocks) on a tool flagged openWorld.
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 100%: the single hash parameter already carries a format note and a worked example. The description restates '64-character block hash' without adding syntax, normalization, or acceptance of height/prefix forms, so it does not meaningfully exceed 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?
Names a specific verb phrase ('Full detail for one block') plus the lookup key (64-character block hash), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It never names the sibling search_block, which is the likely alternative for finding a block without a hash, so the differentiation is only 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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: the requirement of a 64-character hash signals 'use this when you already have the hash.' There is no explicit when-not or pointer to search_block for discovery-by-height/time, and no mention of behavior for unknown or orphaned hashes.
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.