get_stacks_api_url

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the nature of the returned value (custom node vs. Hiro default), but it never states that the call is read-only with no side effects, whether authentication or an unlocked wallet is required, or what happens when no custom URL is configured.

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 first sentence is tight and front-loaded. The second 'Tip: call earning_opportunities to see how to put your assets to work' is unrelated promotional content that does not help an agent decide about endpoint configuration and dilutes an otherwise one-sentence definition.

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 zero-parameter read-only getter with no output schema, the description covers what the tool reports and the meaningful distinction in the value. Only the read-only/no-side-effect framing and the unset-state behavior are missing, which are minor for this complexity level.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline of 4 applies, and the description wastes no effort re-explaining nonexistent inputs.

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 and resource: 'Show the current Stacks API URL being used for blockchain queries,' and adds the discriminator that the value may be a custom node or the default Hiro API. That is clear enough to distinguish it from mutation siblings like set_stacks_api_url or delete_stacks_api_url, though those siblings are never named.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the read-side counterpart for inspecting configuration. There is no statement of when to call it (e.g., before troubleshooting, before switching endpoints) and no pointer to set_stacks_api_url or get_hiro_api_key as adjacent tools.

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