blockhash_by_height_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes a safe read operation (getting a hash) with no side effects mentioned. For a simple lookup, the behavioral disclosure is adequate, but it does not mention what happens for invalid heights (e.g., error response) or any input validation constraints beyond the schema's type requirement.

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: the first states the core function, the second adds the use-case context. No unnecessary words. The most important information is front-loaded. Perfectly concise.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the key functionality. However, it lacks error handling details (e.g., what if the block height does not exist) and does not mention the output format (presumably a string hash). For a complete description given the context, a bit more would be ideal.

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 0%, and the description only mentions 'block_height' without adding meaning beyond its name. It does not specify valid ranges (e.g., from 0 to current chain tip), format (integer vs number), or units. For a single parameter, some additional context would be helpful to ensure correct invocation.

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 'Get the hash of a specific Bitcoin block by its height' and adds 'Use this to convert a block height to its corresponding block hash.' It specifies both the action (get) and the resource (block hash). It distinguishes from siblings like block_get (getting full block data) or latest_blockhash_get (getting latest hash) by indicating the conversion purpose, but doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 says 'Use this to convert a block height to its corresponding block hash,' which implies when to use it (when you need a hash from a height). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among the many block-related sibling tools (e.g., block_get, latest_blockhash_get). The guidance is implied but not explicit.

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