get_blockchain

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden, but it only states the fundamental action. It does not mention that this is a read-only operation, nor does it describe any nuances such as date range overriding behavior, response structure, or potential side effects. The schema covers parameter mechanics, so the description should at least indicate the behavioral scope, but it does not.

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, focused sentence: 'Get blockchain network metrics: block height or daily blocks mined.' It is front-loaded with the primary verb and resource, contains no filler, and earns its place by communicating core purpose without redundancy.

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 relatively simple with a well-documented schema, but the description alone does not provide a complete picture. It lacks mention of return values (no output schema exists) and does not address how it fits with sibling tools. Given the absence of annotations and the need for contextual integration, the description is adequate but not fully 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema by naming the two metrics, but this information is already present in the metric enum. No additional context is provided for the date range parameters, so the description does not meaningfully enhance parameter understanding.

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 tool's function: 'Get blockchain network metrics' and specifies the two metrics (block height, daily blocks mined). This directly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_prices or get_holder_supply, which focus on other metric types. The verb 'get' and resource 'blockchain network metrics' provide a specific and unambiguous purpose.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of preferred contexts, exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like get_latest_metrics or get_metric. Given the large number of sibling metrics tools, this lack of usage guidance is a notable gap.

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