direct_api_call

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe, read-only operation with flexible endpoints. The description adds valuable context beyond this: it explains pagination support ('If response includes 'pagination' field, use the provided next_call'), clarifies return type handling ('Must return ToolResponse[Any]'), and warns about query parameter encoding. This enhances behavioral understanding without contradicting annotations.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by specific instructions and return details. It uses bold for key points like 'SUPPORTS PAGINATION' and code formatting for parameters. While slightly verbose in the return type explanation, most sentences earn their place by providing critical guidance.

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 complexity (open-world API calls) and lack of output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it covers purpose, usage rules, pagination, and return type nuances. However, it could benefit from more examples or error-handling context. Annotations provide safety cues, but the description adequately supplements them for agent use.

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 schema fully documents all four parameters. The description adds minimal param-specific semantics: it reiterates not to include query strings in 'endpoint_path' and mentions pagination via 'cursor', but these are largely covered in schema descriptions. This meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 purpose: 'Call a raw Blockscout API endpoint for advanced or chain-specific data.' It specifies the verb ('Call'), resource ('Blockscout API endpoint'), and scope ('advanced or chain-specific data'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform specific, predefined queries like 'get_address_info' or 'get_transaction_info'.

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 explicit usage guidance: it instructs to use this tool for 'advanced or chain-specific data' (implying when sibling tools are insufficient), warns against including query strings in 'endpoint_path', and details pagination handling. This clearly defines when and how to use it versus the more specialized sibling tools.

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