Get chain status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: block time is a *measured* average over a recent window, and the one-second timestamp resolution combined with multi-block-per-second production means a single block's delta would be misleading. That is a meaningful caveat about the precision of a returned metric.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the returned metrics, and the second sentence exists solely to explain why block time is windowed. Nothing is repeated from the schema and no sentence is filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be enumerated, and an output schema plus full schema coverage means the one parameter is covered. For a simple read-only status tool the description supplies enough; only the when-to-use framing is absent.

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% and the single optional sampleSize parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its default (BLOCK_TIME_SAMPLE_SIZE = 1000). The description only alludes to 'a window of recent blocks' without adding format, bounds, or tuning advice beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 names the concrete payload — latest block, measured average block time, current base fee and gas price — which is a specific resource distinct from sibling tools like get_block or get_transaction. It never explicitly names a sibling to route against, but an agent can tell this is chain-wide aggregate status rather than per-block or per-tx detail.

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 statement of when to prefer this over get_block or get_logs, no exclusions, and no prerequisites. Usage is only inferable from the returned-fields list, so an agent must guess whether this is the right entry point for chain health versus pulling a specific block.

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