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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does disclose credit costs per action and notes they are indicative and may change, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it does not state whether operations are read-only or have side effects, nor does it mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or response format expectations. For a data retrieval tool, the read-only nature is implied but not explicit, leaving a gap.

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 structured with clear sections (Actions, Blockchains/Networks, Credits) and front-loads the core purpose and action list. However, the credit section is repetitive, listing identical values for all six actions, which inflates length without adding information. This verbosity reduces conciseness, though the overall organization is logical.

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 tool with 9 parameters and 6 actions, the description covers actions and networks but omits important usage nuances: it does not clarify that blockHeight and blockHash are mutually exclusive, nor does it explain pagination parameters (offset/limit) beyond the schema. It also does not describe the response format, which could be important for agents that need to handle results. These gaps make it 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 schema already documents each parameter. The description adds little beyond listing actions and networks that are already in the schema enums. It does mention that 'count' is for list-latest-mined-blocks, but that is also in the schema. Since the schema carries the full semantic load, the description adds minimal extra value, matching the baseline of 3.

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 that the tool retrieves EVM block details and enumerates six specific actions (e.g., get-block-by-height, list-transactions-by-block-hash). It also lists supported blockchains and networks, which helps distinguish it from sibling tools that focus on other ecosystems like UTXO or XRP. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 lists actions, networks, and blockchains, which strongly implies it should be used for EVM-compatible chains. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of utxo_block_data or xrp_block_data, nor does it provide any 'when not to use' guidance. The agent must infer from the chain list that this is for EVM chains only.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and explicitly notes 'no API call, no credits consumed,' which is key behavioral information. It also discloses detailed content such as retry strategy, HMAC security, and rate-limit penalty multipliers, going well beyond a generic 'returns info' statement.

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 front-loaded with the critical 'no API call, no credits consumed' caveat and uses a compact bullet list. Each bullet covers a distinct action without wasted prose, making it highly scannable for an agent.

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 reference-documentation tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is complete enough: it defines all five actions and gives sufficient detail about their content. It also clarifies side effects (none) and cost implications (none), covering the main contextual risks.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds significant meaning by explaining each allowed action enum value in detail (e.g., callbacks covers URL requirements, 5 retries, HMAC). This transforms enum names into actionable context and compensates fully beyond the schema's short parameter descriptions.

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 this is CryptoAPIs reference documentation with no API call or credits consumed, and enumerates five specific topics (blockchains, errors, credits, callbacks, limits). This clearly identifies it as an informational tool distinct from domain siblings like aml.

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 bulleted actions give clear contexts for when to use the tool, such as looking up error codes, credit structures, callback mechanics, or rate limits. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of a full when/when-not specification.

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

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 does reveal credit costs per action and notes that actual credits are returned in response headers, which is useful. However, it never states that the tool is read-only, what the response structure looks like, whether pagination is supported, or any error behavior. For a data-retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 verbose and repetitive. It lists the actions in a bullet list, then repeats the same actions in the credits section with numbers for each blockchain. This duplication inflates the length without adding new conceptual clarity. The core purpose is front-loaded, but the long credit enumeration distracts from the essential information. A more concise format would present actions with their parameter requirements and omit the redundant credit table.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain what each action returns, but it does not. It also fails to map actions to required parameters (e.g., that get-block-by-height requires blockHeight, list-latest-mined-blocks uses count/limit, etc.), though the schema provides that mapping. For a multi-action tool with 9 parameters and 6 actions, the description should offer a usage summary or examples. This is incomplete for an agent to correctly select and invoke the right action.

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 already provides descriptions for all 9 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds credit costs per action per network, which is extra contextual information but does not clarify the semantic meaning of parameters beyond the schema. It does not explain which parameters are required for each action beyond what the schema's 'required' field indicates.

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 opens with a clear statement: 'Get UTXO block details (Block Data product).' It then enumerates six concrete actions with one-line descriptions, making it obvious what the tool does. The explicit list of UTXO blockchains (bitcoin, bitcoin-cash, etc.) differentiates it from siblings like evm_block_data and xrp_block_data, which cover other chains.

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 its siblings (evm_block_data, xrp_block_data). It does not state 'use this for UTXO blockchains' or mention alternatives. The only contextual hint is the network list, which implies UTXO support but never states a selection rule. No exclusions or conditions are given.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It adds value by listing per-action credit costs, noting they are indicative, and pointing to response headers for actual spend. However, it does not explicitly state that all operations are read-only/non-destructive, nor does it cover error behavior, response format, or rate limits.

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: a clear opening sentence, a concise bullet list of actions, and a credits section. All content earns its place, though the credits list repeats '20' for every action and could be condensed to a single line without losing information.

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 has 8 parameters and 6 actions, the description does not fully map all parameters to their applicable actions—notably limit and offset are not explicitly tied to the list-transactions actions. There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should clarify expected responses and pagination behavior; it leaves these gaps unresolved.

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%, with each parameter already documented including which actions require blockHash/blockHeight or count. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides—it only repeats the action names and credits, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get XRP block details (Block Data product).' It enumerates six distinct actions with one-line definitions, making it immediately clear what the tool does and how it differs from chain-specific siblings like evm_block_data or utxo_block_data.

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 implies usage through the tool name and the list of XRP-related actions, and it specifies supported networks. However, it never explicitly says when to choose this tool over the sibling chain-specific tools, nor does it state any exclusions or direct the agent to alternatives for other chains.

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