get_block"Block [N] details" / "what was in block [hash]" / "miner / proposer of block [X]" — block detail by number or hash. Returns timestamp, gas used, transaction count, miner / validator, parent / next blocks. Use for chain forensics, block-time analysis.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | Yes | ||
| block_number_or_hash | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate safe, read-only, idempotent behavior. The description adds information about returned fields and use cases, enhancing transparency without contradiction.
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 concise, front-loaded with example queries, and every sentence adds value. No extraneous 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no enums) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers core functionality and use cases. Minor omissions like error handling do not detract significantly.
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 mentions 'by number or hash' but does not elaborate on parameter formats or constraints. Examples in the schema help, but the description alone is insufficient for complete parameter understanding.
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 retrieves block details by number or hash, lists returned fields (timestamp, gas used, etc.) and provides example queries. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on block-level 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?
The description includes example natural language queries that guide usage. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the context is clear enough for block retrieval tasks.
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.
The tool set includes multiple overlapping tools for predictions (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, etc.) and data lookups (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded), and mixes blockchain tools with unrelated services, making it difficult for an agent to select the correct tool.
Tool names follow no consistent pattern: some use verb_noun (get_address, list_chains), others are multi-word phrases (ai_visibility_check, compare_entities), and styles mix snake_case and camelCase erratically.
With 39 tools, the surface is bloated for a blockchain explorer. Many tools are unrelated to blockchain, inflating the count well beyond what is necessary for the server's stated purpose.
The server is named 'Blockscout' but includes mostly non-blockchain tools, leaving the blockchain domain severely incomplete. Even the blockchain-specific tools miss common operations like event logs or internal transactions.