block_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It correctly implies a read operation but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, has no side effects, or mention any rate limits or authentication needs. The description is adequate for a simple getter but lacks explicit transparency.

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?

One sentence of 17 words, front-loaded with the action, no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and output.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what it returns (header, tx IDs, mining details) and how to specify the block (hash or height). It does not detail the response structure, but that is acceptable given the straightforward nature.

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% with a single string parameter 'identifier'. The description adds meaning by stating that the identifier can be a block hash or height, clarifying the format beyond the schema's generic string type. This helps the agent choose the correct input.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'detailed information about a specific Bitcoin block'. It specifies the input can be hash or height, and lists what is returned (header data, transaction IDs, mining details). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like block_raw_hex_get or blocks_get.

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 advises using this tool to retrieve block details, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternative tools for raw hex, raw decoded, or other formats. Usage context is implied but not contrasted with siblings.

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