Get block

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: it discloses the return shape (header fields plus transaction hashes) and the include_transactions toggle behavior, and it enumerates the network targeting options including an arbitrary full RPC URL, which is meaningful behavioral context consistent with openWorldHint.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler. Core information (what is fetched, by what keys, what is returned) is front-loaded, followed by the network options. The second sentence runs long due to the enumerated network names, but every clause earns its place.

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 read-only fetch tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential ground: block identifiers, return contents, the boolean toggle, and the complex network parameter. It does not enumerate the exact header fields returned or the full RPC URL requirements, but given the annotations and moderately simple parameter set, nothing critical an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 67% — block and network carry schema descriptions, but include_transactions has none. The description partially compensates by explaining that include_transactions=true yields full tx objects instead of hashes, adding meaning beyond the schema. Yet the network parameter semantics are already fully described in the schema, so the net added value is moderate.

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+resource ('Fetch a block') with the identification methods (number, hash, tag) and its scope. It is clearly distinguishable from avax_get_transaction, avax_get_balance, and avax_get_chain_status by the block-specific resource, so an agent can tell it apart without opening those sibling schemas.

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 purpose implies when to use it — when a block is needed — and the include_transactions hint implicitly guides granularity choice. However, the description gives no explicit when-not guidance or alternative routing (e.g., contrast with avax_get_transaction or avax_data_list_transactions), leaving selection to inference.

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