get_blockchain_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature via 'Get' and lists the returned fields, but omits other behavioral traits like data freshness, potential latency, or whether the call is lightweight versus expensive. It meets minimum disclosure but lacks rich behavioral context.

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 single sentence is efficiently front-loaded with the action, followed by a colon-delimited list of return fields. There is no extraneous text; every word serves to clarify the tool's output.

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 the tool has zero parameters and an output schema exists, the description does not need to exhaustively detail return values. The enumeration of key fields (chain, difficulty, etc.) provides sufficient context for an agent to select this tool for general blockchain state queries.

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 input schema has zero parameters, establishing a baseline score of 4. The description correctly implies no filtering or configuration is needed for this general state query.

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 ('Get') and enumerates the exact data points returned (chain, difficulty, softfork statuses, chain work, pruning), clarifying what 'blockchain info' entails. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this comprehensive getter from sibling tools like get_difficulty_adjustment or get_mining_info that return overlapping subsets of this data.

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 prefer this tool over the many specific sibling getters (e.g., get_difficulty_adjustment, get_chain_tips). It omits prerequisites, context (e.g., 'use for general overview'), or exclusions.

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