Search for blocks, transactions, or accounts by query (block number, tx signature, or address)
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"query": "<query>"
},
"name": "search"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search query |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only says 'search' and gives query examples; it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what the result shape or limit is, whether matches are exact or partial, or what happens on no results.
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 verb and resource and immediately provides concrete query examples. There is no filler or redundant repetition.
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 one-parameter search tool, the description is adequate for selection and basic invocation, but with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves important context unspecified, such as the return format, possible mixed result types, and pagination or result limits.
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 describes query as 'Search query', but the tool description adds meaningful semantics by listing acceptable query forms: block number, transaction signature, or address. This helps the agent construct valid queries.
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 a search action over three specific resource types (blocks, transactions, accounts) and gives concrete query examples. It is not a tautology, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_account/get_block/get_transaction 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?
The description implies when to use the tool: when you have a block number, transaction signature, or address to search by. However, it does not provide explicit alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use get_block when you already have the exact block number.'
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.