get_blockchain_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), implying it's non-destructive, but fails to mention any constraints like permissions required, rate limits, network dependencies, or error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational behavior.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and enumerates the key information returned. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids any redundant or extraneous details, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description adequately covers the basic purpose and output data points. However, it lacks context on behavioral aspects like error handling or performance, and does not clarify differentiation from sibling tools, which could hinder the agent's ability to use it correctly in a broader workflow.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description appropriately adds no parameter details, as none are needed. This aligns with the baseline expectation for zero-parameter tools, where the description focuses on output semantics instead.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('blockchain information'), specifying three concrete data points: total block count, current block hash, and previous block hash. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from its sibling 'get_block_info', which might retrieve information about a specific block rather than overall blockchain metadata.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_block_info' (for specific block details) and 'get_channel_info' (possibly for channel-level data), the agent lacks explicit direction on selecting this tool for high-level blockchain metadata over other informational tools.

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