explorer_get_blocks_by_validator

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description need not restate safety. It adds the behavioral context of 'mined/validated' but does not disclose pagination behavior, return format, or any caveats about data availability. With annotations covering the read-only nature, 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 filler. It conveys the essential purpose in minimal words, earning every bit of space.

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 moderate complexity (pagination, required chainId), the description is reasonably complete. It doesn't explicitly mention return structure or pagination behavior, but since there is no output schema and the input schema documents pagination, the description covers the core functionality. It could be improved by noting that results are paginated or that chainId determines network, but the overall context is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions (address, chainId, page, pageSize). The description's phrase 'by a specific address' maps to the address parameter but adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema, which already explains each parameter's purpose and constraints.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies a clear resource ('blocks mined/validated by a specific address'). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like explorer_get_block (by block number) and explorer_get_block_by_timestamp (by timestamp) by focusing on validator address.

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 the tool is used when querying blocks associated with a validator address, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over other explorer tools or provide exclusion criteria (e.g., 'use instead of explorer_get_block when you have an address rather than a block number'). The usage context is inferred but not directly stated.

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