Get a Bitcoin block summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses what the summary includes and the special behavior when height is omitted. It does not mention error handling or explicitly confirm read-only semantics, but the read-only nature is strongly implied by 'summary' and the listed fields.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and immediately lists the output fields and the key behavioral nuance. There is no wasted wording.

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?

The tool has no output schema, but the description enumerates the return fields, making the output explicit. It also explains the only behavioral nuance (chain tip when height omitted). For a simple one-parameter read tool, this is fully complete.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage of the single parameter 'height' with a clear description. The tool description repeats the omit-for-tip behavior but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('a Bitcoin block') with a clear scope ('summary') listing the fields (hash, timestamp, transaction count, size, weight, difficulty). This clearly distinguishes get_block from sibling tools that address other Bitcoin entities (sat, bitmap, inscription, rune, fees).

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 provides clear usage context: it summarizes a Bitcoin block and explains the omit-height behavior for the current chain tip. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, though sibling names make the distinction implicit.

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