get_now_block

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context, such as whether the block is finalized/pending, error conditions, or return format. It simply restates the tool name 'now' as 'current latest,' offering no new information beyond annotations and schema.

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 sentence of eight words, with no filler or redundant phrasing. It is extremely concise and directly states the core action.

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?

This is a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and good annotation coverage. However, given the large number of sibling block-retrieval tools, the description lacks enough context to help an agent select it confidently. It neither explains how it differs from similar tools nor describes any edge-case behavior, leaving some ambiguity.

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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'network' with a clear description ('Network name. Defaults to mainnet.'). The tool description itself does not mention the network parameter, so it adds no extra semantic value. Baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the full parameter documentation.

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 the specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource ('current latest block information') and scope ('from the network'). It is clear and unambiguous, but it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like get_latest_block or get_block_by_latest_num, so it does not fully meet the 'distinguishes from siblings' criterion.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling block-related tools (e.g., get_latest_block, get_block_by_latest_num, get_block_by_num), the lack of any usage context or exclusions is a significant gap.

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