Return compact public metadata for one Base block hash. The paid REST endpoint GET /service/base-block costs $0.005 USDC through x402 and does not return transaction bodies.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| blockHash | Yes | Base block hash to inspect. |
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the endpoint is paid, costs $0.005 USDC through x402, and does not return transaction bodies. This goes beyond a simple read-only hint, though it does not detail the exact response contents or rate limits.
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 no fluff. It front-loads the main action, then efficiently adds cost and limitation details. Every sentence earns its place.
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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is compact but leaves a gap: it says 'compact public metadata' without specifying what fields are included. Since there is no output schema, the agent cannot know if the response contains e.g. timestamp, block number, or transaction count, making it incomplete.
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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for blockHash with a clear description. The tool description adds no new parameter semantics beyond restating 'one Base block hash' and does not elaborate on format, validity, or examples, so it meets the baseline for schema coverage.
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 action ('Return compact public metadata') and the target resource ('one Base block hash'), distinguishing it from siblings like gas price or USDC balance tools. It also explicitly notes what it does not return (transaction bodies), further clarifying its scope.
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 gives clear context: it is for a single block hash and is a paid endpoint, which informs when to use it. It provides a when-not by stating it does not return transaction bodies, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state a preferred use case, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
