get_block_number

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It omits freshness semantics (is 'current' latest, safe, or finalized?), caching behavior, failure modes for an unreachable network, and what shape the result takes. Only the core read intent is conveyed.

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?

A single clean sentence with zero filler and the key concept ('current block number') front-loaded. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than optimally sized.

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 read with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It leaves gaps on return format and freshness that would matter for correct invocation, but the tool's low complexity keeps the miss small.

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?

Only one parameter (network) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents the accepted values and the default. The description adds no extra meaning about how network selection affects the result, 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get the current block number for the network.' An agent knows exactly what it returns. However, it does not differentiate itself from close siblings like get_block, get_chain_info, or get_block_rewards, so it loses the top mark.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. With siblings such as get_block and get_chain_info presumably exposing related chain state, the description never tells the agent which one to pick or under what condition.

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