Get block

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the read-like nature with 'fetch' and describes the return structure, including the optional full-transaction behavior. However, it does not mention any potential nuances such as how the 'latest' is resolved, whether cached data may be returned, rate limits, or error behavior for invalid block identifiers. The behavioral transparency is adequate but not detailed.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action, identifiers, and return payload with no filler or repetition. It is minimal but informative, earning every word.

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?

The tool is a straightforward block-fetch operation with no required parameters and a strong schema. The description accurately summarizes the return types ('header fields and transaction hashes'), which is sufficient for a typical call. A full output schema is absent, but the description gives enough about what to expect. It could improve by noting potential error conditions or the meaning of the default 'latest', but given the simplicity of the tool, it is largely 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 coverage is 100%, with detailed descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds some contextual phrasing like 'full transactions if requested', which lightly reinforces the includeTransactions parameter, but it mostly paraphrases the schema rather than adding new semantics. Baseline 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 states a specific verb, resource, and scope: 'Fetch a block'. It also names the identifier forms (number, hash, 'latest') and the return content (header fields, transaction hashes or full transactions), which clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_transaction and get_balance. No other sibling fetches a block by these selectors, so it is uniquely identifiable.

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 makes it clear that this tool is for retrieving a block, which is a sufficient usage context, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of related tools like get_transaction for individual transaction details, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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