get_block_rewards

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 notes the data originates from the KaiaScan API, but says nothing about read-only semantics, behavior for non-existent or unfinalized blocks, rate limits, or the shape of the result beyond 'rewards and burns summary'.

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 front-loaded sentence with the resource named first. The trailing parenthetical '(rewards and burns summary)' largely repeats the opening clause and could be cut, but the description is not bloated.

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 two-parameter read query with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it leaves the relationship to sibling get_block and the response content ambiguous, which a slightly richer sentence could have resolved.

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% (network default and blockNumber integer semantics are documented in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema already states.

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: retrieves rewards and burns for a given block. It is reasonably distinguishable from the sibling get_block, which covers general block data, though the description never explicitly contrasts the two.

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 statement of when to use this versus get_block or other block-related siblings, and no conditions or exclusions. The agent can only infer usage from the name and the phrase 'for a block'.

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