get_solana_block

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'optional transactions' but doesn't explain what 'block information' includes, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. For a read operation with no structured safety hints, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary details. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly. This is an example of optimal conciseness for a straightforward 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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't specify what 'block information' entails, how results are structured, or any behavioral traits like pagination or error handling. For a tool with three parameters and no structured output, more context is needed to guide effective 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all parameters (slot, includeTransactions, network). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only implying the optional nature of transactions. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding significantly.

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: 'Get Solana block information with optional transactions.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('Solana block information'), and optional feature ('with optional transactions'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_solana_block_height' or 'get_block_details,' which reduces clarity in a crowded toolset.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'get_solana_block_height,' 'get_block_details'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone, which is insufficient for optimal selection.

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