Get block data by number or tag on Ethereum mainnet. Use hex block number (e.g. "0x1") or "latest". Returns full block object with transaction hashes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| block | Yes | Block number as hex (e.g. "0x1") or tag ("latest", "earliest", "pending") |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds return shape ('full block object with transaction hashes') and parameter usage, which is useful context beyond annotations. No contradictions.
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?
Three short sentences, each with a distinct purpose: what it does, how to specify the block, and what it returns. No redundant 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?
For a single-parameter read-only tool with good schema coverage, the description covers purpose, usage, and return format adequately. It lacks only error behavior, which is typically not critical for this type of RPC.
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 covers the parameter fully, and the description adds an example ('0x1') but omits 'earliest' and 'pending' tags, which are in the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds marginal value.
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 data on Ethereum mainnet by number or tag, and notes the return format, distinguishing it from other chain-specific or testnet block tools.
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?
It provides clear context (use hex block number or 'latest') and implies the mainnet scope, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like eth_get_transaction or other chain block getters.
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.
Every tool is clearly distinguished by a network prefix (btc, btc_testnet, eth, mezo, mezo_testnet) and a unique operation (get_balance, get_block, get_transaction, etc.). There is no overlap between tools; even similar operations like get_balance and get_token_balance are explicitly separated for different asset types.
Tool names follow a consistent pattern of network prefix followed by a verb_noun operation (e.g., btc_get_balance, mezo_get_token_info). Minor deviations like eth_gas_price instead of eth_get_gas_price and eth_estimate_gas do not disrupt the overall predictable structure.
With 46 tools, the server feels heavy and overwhelming. While each tool covers a specific network and operation, the count far exceeds the typical well-scoped range of 3-15 tools, even considering the multi-chain nature of the server.
The server provides a solid read-only surface for Bitcoin and EVM chains (balance, blocks, transactions, logs, token info, fees). However, it lacks any transaction creation or broadcasting capabilities, and there is no eth_call for arbitrary contract calls, leaving notable gaps for common blockchain workflows.