One Keeta block by its 64-character hash. Amounts are ledger integers. Free.
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": {
"hash": "<hash>"
},
"name": "get_block"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hash | Yes | 64 hex characters |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by saying the call is 'Free' and that amounts are ledger integers, but it does not describe error handling, not-found behavior, or response shape.
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 very short and front-loads the core operation and identifier. Every fragment earns its place: resource, hash format, amount representation, and cost.
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 simple read-by-hash tool, the description is mostly adequate, especially given annotations that confirm read-only/open-world behavior. However, with no output schema, it does not explain the block’s returned fields or what happens when the hash is invalid or unknown.
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 100%, and the single parameter is already documented as '64 hex characters'. The description reinforces the 64-character hash requirement but adds no meaningful semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 identifies the resource and required identifier: one Keeta block retrieved by a 64-character hash. It is specific enough for an agent to understand the operation, though it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling get_* 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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_token or get_account. The phrase 'by its 64-character hash' implies the required input, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.
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.