evm_block_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does disclose credit costs per action and notes they are indicative and may change, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it does not state whether operations are read-only or have side effects, nor does it mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or response format expectations. For a data retrieval tool, the read-only nature is implied but not explicit, leaving a gap.

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 structured with clear sections (Actions, Blockchains/Networks, Credits) and front-loads the core purpose and action list. However, the credit section is repetitive, listing identical values for all six actions, which inflates length without adding information. This verbosity reduces conciseness, though the overall organization is logical.

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 tool with 9 parameters and 6 actions, the description covers actions and networks but omits important usage nuances: it does not clarify that blockHeight and blockHash are mutually exclusive, nor does it explain pagination parameters (offset/limit) beyond the schema. It also does not describe the response format, which could be important for agents that need to handle results. These gaps make it adequate but not fully complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds little beyond listing actions and networks that are already in the schema enums. It does mention that 'count' is for list-latest-mined-blocks, but that is also in the schema. Since the schema carries the full semantic load, the description adds minimal extra value, matching the baseline of 3.

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 that the tool retrieves EVM block details and enumerates six specific actions (e.g., get-block-by-height, list-transactions-by-block-hash). It also lists supported blockchains and networks, which helps distinguish it from sibling tools that focus on other ecosystems like UTXO or XRP. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 lists actions, networks, and blockchains, which strongly implies it should be used for EVM-compatible chains. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of utxo_block_data or xrp_block_data, nor does it provide any 'when not to use' guidance. The agent must infer from the chain list that this is for EVM chains only.

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