quote_metrics_at_block

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 a single action without mentioning side effects, permissions, safety, return structure, or failure modes. 'Quote' hints at a read operation, but it's not explicitly stated as non-destructive or safe, and no additional behavioral context is given.

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 concise sentence with no filler words, effectively front-loading the core purpose. It earns its place by stating the exact operation and scope. However, it is so brief that it borders on under-specification, though the content that exists is efficient.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is vastly incomplete. It fails to explain the meaning of most parameters, the expected return value, or how this tool fits into the broader set of sibling tools. The description is a bare minimum that would leave an agent guessing about correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it provides no parameter details. It mentions 'block number' which aligns with the blockNumber parameter, but adds nothing beyond the schema's parameter name. It doesn't explain the purpose of names, chain, format, decimals, rpcUrl, or contractAddress, leaving the agent without necessary semantic guidance.

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 'quote' and resource 'metrics', with a specific qualifier 'at specific block number'. This distinguishes it from siblings like quote_metrics_at_timestamp and quote_metrics, which target other time references. However, it doesn't fully elaborate on what 'quote' entails (e.g., return format), so it's clear but not exhaustive.

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 for retrieving metrics at a particular block, which provides some context. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like quote_metrics_at_epoch_end or quote_metrics_at_timestamp, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites. The usage is implied but not explicitly framed.

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