get_block_by_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds the return contents (block header and transaction list) not covered by annotations. This provides concrete behavioral output information without contradicting the read-only nature.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the action and resource, with no redundant phrasing. The sentence about return content adds necessary value and every word earns its place.

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 lookup with strong annotations, the description adequately covers purpose, input type (hash), and output (header and transactions). It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke correctly amid many sibling block-related tools.

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%; both value and network parameters are described. The description's mention of 'block ID (hash)' largely mirrors the schema's value description and adds no new parameter-level semantics. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 queries a block by its ID (hash) and specifies the return content as block header and transaction list. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_block_by_num and get_latest_block by emphasizing the hash-based identifier.

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 phrase 'by block ID (hash)' implies use when a block hash is available, which is a clear usage context. It does not explicitly name alternatives like get_block_by_num, but the large sibling list and this description make the appropriate scenario straightforward.

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