get_block_with_transactions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral context. It only restates the core functionality without disclosing details such as the output format, potential heavy load from fetching full transaction data, pagination behavior, or any differences from simpler block fetch tools. This adds little beyond the tool name and basic purpose.

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 effectively communicates the primary purpose. It contains no fluff, though it could arguably offer more structural detail (e.g., listing what 'full transaction details' includes). Still, it is appropriately sized for a simple read operation.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, and the existence of many closely related sibling tools, the description is too sparse to fully enable correct selection and invocation. It does not explain what 'full transaction details' means, how this tool compares to alternatives like get_block_by_number, or any caveats about fetching large blocks.

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%, with both network and blockNumber already documented in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information, so it earns the baseline score of 3. The schema's param descriptions are adequate and need no complementation.

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 fetches a block with full transaction details, distinguishing it from tools returning only hashes. The parenthetical '(not just hashes)' helps differentiate it from sibling block-fetching tools like get_block_by_number, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the many sibling block-related tools (e.g., get_block_by_number, get_block_receipts). The parenthetical hint implies a need for full transaction details, but there is no clear when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, nor any named alternatives.

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