blockrun_rpc

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses pricing ($0.002 per call) and the raw access nature. However, it does not mention rate limits, error handling, or whether operations are read-only, which would improve transparency.

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 well-structured: brief introduction, use case, network list, multiple realistic examples, and an alternatives paragraph. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 output schema, the description does not detail return values, but that is standard for an RPC tool. It covers pricing, use cases, examples, and alternatives. It is comprehensive for its role.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing usage examples for each parameter, explaining that method is required unless body is set, and that body overrides method/params. This goes beyond the schema definition.

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 'Raw JSON-RPC against 40+ blockchains' and lists specific supported methods. It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly naming alternatives (blockrun_price, blockrun_dex, blockrun_surf) that cover higher-level use cases.

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 explicitly says 'Use when you need data the higher-level tools don't cover' and provides examples. It also advises when to prefer sibling tools: 'Prefer blockrun_price... when they cover the question — this tool is for raw chain access.'

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