Get Block

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return fields and the two parameter modes, but it does not clarify the behavior when both `block` and `last` are provided or when invalid inputs are given, nor does it state any error handling or side effects. This is adequate but has gaps.

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 two sentences with no redundancy. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the parameter explanation is compact yet complete. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's behavior.

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?

There is an output schema available, so detailed return structure is likely covered. The description already mentions the key return fields. The only gap is the lack of guidance on edge cases (e.g., both parameters set, invalid block), but given the tool's simplicity, the description is nearly sufficient.

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 schema documents only defaults and types; the description compensates fully by explaining that `block` accepts an index or hash and that `last` (1-50) returns the most recent N blocks. This adds critical meaning beyond the raw schema, which has 0% description coverage.

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 retrieves a Bitcoin block as the Stamps indexer sees it, specifying the return fields (block_time, hashes, tx_count). It also distinguishes the two modes of use (by block index/hash or via `last`), making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings like stamps_in_block.

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 description provides explicit usage instructions: how to specify a block by index/hash or retrieve recent blocks via `last`. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, such as distinguishing from related sibling tools like stamps_in_block, leaving the selection logic to the agent.

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