explorer_get_block_rewards

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 known. The description adds the list of reward components (miner reward, uncle inclusion reward, uncle blocks) but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as pagination, return format, or rate limits. With annotations covering the basic safety, this is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the core function and key output details, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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-only tool with two required parameters and good schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It names the specific reward fields, which is helpful. However, it lacks any usage context or mention of output structure, and there is no output schema to rely on. Still, given the simplicity of the tool, a 4 is appropriate.

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% for both parameters (chainId and blockNumber), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It lists output components but no details about parameter interpretation or constraints beyond the schema.

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's purpose: 'Get block reward details including miner reward, uncle inclusion reward, and uncle blocks.' It uses a specific verb and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like explorer_get_daily_block_rewards or explorer_get_block, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons to similar explorer tools. The description only states what the tool does, not when to prefer it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.