get_blockchain_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Find a blockchain' gives minimal insight - it suggests a read operation but doesn't describe what details are returned, whether it's a search or exact match, error behavior for invalid names, rate limits, authentication requirements, or response format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is inadequate disclosure.

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 extremely concise at just three words, which could be appropriate if it were more informative. However, this brevity borders on under-specification rather than efficient communication. It's front-loaded (the entire description is the first and only phrase) but fails to provide necessary context that would justify such extreme 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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a single but critical parameter, the description is incomplete. For a lookup tool in what appears to be a cryptocurrency/blockchain API with many similar tools, the description should clarify what 'details' means, how this differs from other blockchain-related tools, and what format the response takes. The current description leaves too much for the agent to infer.

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%, with the single parameter 'name' well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema already states. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description, which applies here.

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 'Find a blockchain' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'get_blockchain_details' without adding meaningful specificity. It doesn't clarify what details are retrieved, what format they come in, or how this differs from sibling tools like 'get_blockchains' (which presumably lists multiple blockchains). The verb 'find' is vague compared to more precise alternatives like 'retrieve details about' or 'fetch metadata for'.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'get_blockchains' (likely listing all blockchains), 'get_coin' (for specific coins), and 'get_blockchain_uuid_by_contract_address' (for lookup by address), the description offers no context about when this specific lookup-by-name tool is appropriate versus those other options. The agent must infer usage from the parameter alone.

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