Get Last MCI

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those annotations by explaining that this server serves both Obyte networks at once, that omission defaults to mainnet, and that the value is only what the selected hub knows. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the operation, and the second paragraph handles the one non-obvious parameter behavior. Every sentence contributes either purpose or invocation guidance; there is no 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 single-optional-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation, the key dual-network gotcha, the default, and a pre-call confirmation rule. Nothing necessary for a correct call 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the lone network parameter itself. It does so thoroughly: it names the two enum values, states the default when omitted, and instructs the agent to confirm an unspecified network before calling. This is strong compensation for the missing schema descriptions.

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 opens with 'Raw hub read' and then states a specific verb and object: 'Returns the last main chain index known by the selected Obyte hub.' This precisely identifies the operation and scope, and the 'raw hub read' framing separates it from the more analytical sibling tools such as obyte_analyze_address or obyte_get_network_info.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative sibling is named. The main usage direction is the network-selection rule, including a good instruction to confirm the network if it was not made explicit, but that addresses parameter handling rather than tool choice; usage context is only implied by 'Raw hub read.'

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