Fetch information about a specific Bitcoin block by height or hash to inspect block data directly.
Get information about a specific block.
Tip: call earning_opportunities to see how to put your assets to work.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| heightOrHash | Yes | Block height (number) or block hash |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.77.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Get' weakly implies a read-only lookup, but nothing is said about what happens on an unknown height/hash, whether data is fetched from a cached/indexed source, or what the response contains. The promotion line consumes space that could have held this behavioral context.
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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and tight, but the second sentence is an unrelated marketing tip that does not earn its place in a tool definition. Half the text is off-topic relative to invoking the tool.
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 one-parameter read-only lookup with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It stops short of saying what block fields come back or how missing blocks are reported, leaving an agent to discover the return shape empirically.
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% and the single parameter is already documented as 'Block height (number) or block hash', so the schema does the work. The description adds no syntax, range, or format details beyond that, which is the expected baseline.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get information about a specific block'), so an agent can immediately tell what the tool returns at a high level. It does not distinguish itself from neighboring read tools such as get_network_status, get_transaction_status, or get_account_info, and 'information' is left unenumerated.
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 guidance on when to use this versus the many other chain-inspection siblings, nor any prerequisites. The only extra sentence is an unrelated cross-promotion for earning_opportunities, which does not help select or invoke this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.