Epoch info

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

With no annotations present, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only query, how it handles RPC errors, or what the default behavior is regarding the optional URL parameter, aside from the schema's mention of defaults.

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 phrase that lists all relevant output fields without any fluff or repetition. It is front-loaded and adequately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 simple nature of the tool (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description provides a clear list of returned values. However, it does not explain the return format or the effect of the 'url' parameter on which RPC endpoint is queried, so minor gaps remain.

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% because the only parameter ('url') has a clear description of its default behavior. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, but since the schema already covers it, a baseline score of 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 identifies the tool as returning current epoch, slot index/slots-in-epoch, absolute slot, and block height. Although it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', the content effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools such as rpc_health or next_leaders by its focus on timing/block data.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any specific conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the output fields.

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