Begin real-time monitoring of new blocks on Chiliz Chain to track network activity as it happens. Optionally store recent blocks in memory for quick access.
Start real-time monitoring of new blocks on Chiliz Chain
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| storeHistory | No | Store recent blocks in memory |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only says monitoring is 'real-time'. It omits whether this opens a persistent websocket/subscription, whether it can be run concurrently, how events are delivered, and whether a stop tool is required to end it — all critical for a stateful start-monitoring call.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the action and target are clear immediately.
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 one-parameter start command with no output schema this is minimally adequate, but a tool with side effects in a suite containing stop_all_monitoring should at least hint at lifecycle behavior. It is serviceable but leaves notable gaps.
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 documents storeHistory at 100% coverage ('Store recent blocks in memory'), so the description need not repeat it. It adds nothing about the default or memory implications, matching the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Start real-time monitoring of new blocks') and implicitly distinguishes itself from start_log_monitoring and start_pending_tx_monitoring by naming the block resource. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or clarify the relationship to get_recent_blocks, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
No guidance on when to start this versus polling get_recent_blocks, nor any mention of prerequisites or how monitoring is terminated (stop_all_monitoring). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.