magicblock getRoutes

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe read-only profile. The description adds context by listing returned fields (identity, FQDN, fee, block time, country), which goes beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements, which are not needed given its simplicity.

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 a single sentence of 14 words, with the core action 'List available Ephemeral Rollup nodes' front-loaded. The parenthetical enumeration of fields is efficient. There is zero wasted text, and the extra period at the end is negligible.

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 a simple input schema (1 optional parameter with enum), an output schema (so return values are documented there), and annotations covering safety, the description provides sufficient context. It states what is listed and the fields included, making the tool fully understandable for invocation.

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 input schema already documents the single 'endpoint' parameter with its enum values. The description mentions 'from the Magic Router' but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description does not significantly enhance 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's purpose: to list available Ephemeral Rollup nodes from the Magic Router, and enumerates specific fields (identity, FQDN, fee, block time, country). This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from other magicblock_ tools like magicblock_balance or magicblock_deposit, which have different functions.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While its function is straightforward and no direct sibling alternative exists for listing routes, the lack of explicit usage guidance lowers the score. Usage is implied from the description but not clarified with when-not or alternatives.

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