koios_pool_blocks

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry full disclosure of behavior. It only states the basic function and does not mention pagination (limit/offset), ordering, filtering by epoch, or what fields are returned. There is no information about rate limits, output format, or how the tool handles missing/invalid pool IDs. This is a significant gap for an API endpoint.

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 that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It wastes no words and is easy to scan. It could be considered too terse for behavioral transparency, but as a purpose statement it is highly 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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, and the description is minimal. It does not explain that the endpoint is paginated, what a 'block' record looks like, or how the optional filters (epoch, select, order) affect results. The description leaves an agent without enough context to know what to expect in the response or how to construct effective queries beyond the schema field names.

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 has 100% description coverage, with each parameter (limit, order, offset, select, _epoch_no, _pool_bech32) having a description. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('blocks') and a specific scope ('minted by a specific pool'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like koios_blocks, which likely returns all blocks or general block information, and from pool-level tools like koios_pool_info.

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 phrase 'by a specific pool' implies this tool is for querying blocks associated with a pool, giving some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives such as koios_blocks, nor does it mention any prerequisites (e.g., needing a pool ID in bech32 format) or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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