Block MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about gas fee ranges ('Low (<10) is cheap. High (>50) is expensive.'), which helps interpret the output. However, it lacks details on data sources, update frequency, or error handling, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 highly concise and well-structured in two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose clearly, and the second adds valuable context about gas fee ranges without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place, making it efficient and front-loaded.

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's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and provides context for interpreting results. However, it could be more comprehensive by mentioning data sources or update frequency, which would enhance completeness for a tool with no annotations.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and output interpretation. This meets the baseline for tools with no parameters.

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's purpose: 'Check the current gas fees (in Gwei) across multiple blockchains.' It specifies the verb ('check'), resource ('gas fees'), and unit of measurement ('Gwei'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'get_transactions' or 'wallet_check', which prevents a score of 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions context about gas fee ranges ('Low (<10) is cheap. High (>50) is expensive.'), but this is behavioral information rather than usage guidelines. There is no mention of when to use this tool over siblings like 'get_transactions' or 'wallet_check'.

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