Stamps In Block

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a non-obvious default: omitting block_index selects the latest indexed block, which the schema's default null does not convey. It does not discuss empty-block or invalid-block behavior, but for a simple block-scoped read this is adequate.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the use-case phrase at the end earns its place by giving the agent a quick reason to select this tool.

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 one optional parameter, an existing output schema, and a simple read-only purpose, the description is complete enough for correct selection and invocation. The only nuance an agent needs—what happens when block_index is omitted—is explicitly stated.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning by explaining that the omitted/null block_index means 'latest indexed block', which is the key semantic for the single parameter. It could also clarify behavior for unknown block indices, but the core parameter behavior is covered.

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?

Description states a specific verb-plus-resource: 'Stamps minted in a block', and distinguishes itself by scoping to block membership. It also clarifies the default behavior when block_index is omitted, which is far more than a restatement of the name.

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 phrase 'the latest indexed block when block_index is omitted' gives clear context for the common call pattern, and 'Good for what just got stamped' points to a concrete use case. It does not name sibling alternatives explicitly or give when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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