Get block

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's added value is noting the two return modes (hashes vs full transactions), which is mildly useful context but partially redundant with the includeTransactions parameter and the output schema.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and identifier forms, with the return behavior appended. No filler or repetition.

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 a full parameter schema, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers the essentials an agent needs to invoke the tool. The only real omission is usage routing against siblings, which is a minor gap given how specific the verb and resource are.

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 both parameters are already documented in detail (block accepts number/hash/tag with defaults; includeTransactions controls verbosity). The description restates the identifier forms the schema already covers and adds no new syntax, formatting, or edge-case 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 names a specific verb (fetch) and resource (block), enumerates the three accepted identifier forms (number, hash, tag), and states the return shape (header fields plus transaction hashes or full transactions). This clearly separates it from siblings like get_transaction or get_logs without needing to name them.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus alternatives such as get_transaction or get_chain_status, nor any stated prerequisites or exclusions. The only situational hint — that an unspecified block defaults to latest — lives in the schema, not the description.

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