blocks_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses that the tool returns info about the last 100 blocks, including heights, hashes, timestamps. It does not mention any side effects, rate limits, or pagination, but for a simple read operation, this is acceptable.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. No wasted words.

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 (no output schema, one parameter), the description covers the main behavior and return values. However, the unexplained parameter leaves a gap in completeness.

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 sole parameter 'random_string' is not explained in the description. The parameter appears irrelevant to the tool's purpose, and the description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, leaving the agent confused about its purpose.

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 states 'Get information about the last 100 Bitcoin blocks,' clearly specifying the verb 'Get' and the resource 'last 100 Bitcoin blocks.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like block_get (specific block) and latest_blockhash_get (just hash).

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 adds 'Use this for obtaining an overview of recent blockchain activity including block heights, hashes, and timestamps,' providing clear context on when to use. It does not explicitly list when not to use or mention alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient.

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