get_block_by_hash

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Get a block by hash') without detailing what 'Get' entails—e.g., whether it returns full block data, error handling for invalid hashes, rate limits, or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with blockchain networks.

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 with zero waste—'Get a block by hash' directly conveys the core action. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse without unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity of blockchain interactions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what data is returned (e.g., block details like transactions, timestamp), error scenarios, or network-specific behaviors. For a tool with 2 parameters and likely nuanced output, this minimal description is inadequate.

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 both parameters ('blockHash' and 'network'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the 'blockHash' parameter is used for lookup. Since the schema handles parameter details, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, with no extra value from the description.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('a block'), specifying it's retrieved 'by hash'. It distinguishes from sibling 'get_block_by_number' by indicating the lookup method, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_block_by_number' or 'get_latest_block'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a valid block hash, or exclusions, like not working for pending blocks. It's a basic statement with no usage instructions.

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