get_v1_subtensor_derivatives_events_block_number

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It notes the data is from finalized blocks and includes a disclaimer ('not investment advice') and pricing. However, it lacks disclosure of side effects (none expected), authentication needs, rate limits, or output format details, leaving gaps in 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 composed of four short, clear statements. The first sentence efficiently conveys the tool's function and key fields in parentheses. No redundant information, but the structure could be improved by separating the fields list more explicitly.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description lists the returned fields (event_idx, phase, module_id, event_id, attributes) which is helpful. However, it does not describe the response count or format (array vs object), and the parameter confusion is not resolved. For a simple tool, it is partially complete but has 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's parameter description for block_number is misleading (giving BTC/ETH/SOL as examples, which are not block numbers). The tool description does not clarify this, nor does it explain the valid range or format of block_number. With only one parameter and 100% schema coverage, the description adds no value to parameter understanding.

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 retrieves all Bittensor substrate events for a single finalized block and lists the included fields (event_idx, phase, module_id, event_id, attributes). This specific verb-resource pairing distinguishes it from siblings like get_v1_subtensor_derivatives_event_stream (streaming events) and other block-focused tools.

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 context ('AI agent API for detailed forensic analysis of specific blocks') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., the event stream endpoint). No exclusion criteria or alternative references are given, limiting guidance for an AI agent.

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