Recent blocks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the return contents (height, hash, timestamp, transaction count, size, median fee) and the upper bound of 10 blocks. This is sufficient for a simple read-only tool, though it doesn't explicitly state that it's non-mutating.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every word adds value. No redundancy or filler.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and its limit. The lack of output schema is compensated by listing all returned fields.

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 100% for the single 'limit' parameter, including default, min, max, and description. The description adds no new parameter details beyond reinforcing the 'up to 10' cap, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('recent Bitcoin blocks'), and lists the exact fields returned. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_tip, get_transaction, and get_mempool_stats.

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 implies usage for retrieving recent block summaries, but offers no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings or any exclusions. It's clear enough for straightforward use, but lacks explicit comparative context.

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