Fetch the BSV block header for a specific height, returning hash, merkle root, timestamp, and bits. Converts a block height into a wall-clock time.
Get the BSV block header at a specific height (hash, merkleRoot, time, bits). Served via the self-hosted headers.peck.to (Chaintracks). Useful for converting a post's block_height into a wall-clock time.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| height | Yes | Block height. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the data source (self-hosted headers.peck.to / Chaintracks) and the returned fields, which is useful. However, it doesn't mention potential failure modes (e.g., what happens for heights beyond the current chain tip), rate limits, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description is honest but not deeply transparent.
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 core function and returned fields, followed by a practical use case. No wasted words.
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 simple single-parameter lookup tool, the description covers what it returns, the data source, and a motivating use case. It lacks an output schema and doesn't describe error behavior for invalid heights, but the simplicity of the tool makes the description largely sufficient.
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% (the only parameter 'height' is described as 'Block height.'). The description adds the context that height corresponds to a post's block_height and that the result can be converted to wall-clock time, but it doesn't add format or range details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 function: getting a BSV block header at a specific height, and lists the key fields returned (hash, merkleRoot, time, bits). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning its use case of converting a post's block_height into wall-clock time, which is unique among the listed siblings.
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 a clear use case ('converting a post's block_height into a wall-clock time') and identifies the data source (self-hosted headers.peck.to / Chaintracks). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to select it appropriately among the siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.