inscriptions_block_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states it gets all inscriptions in a block, but does not disclose potential behavioral traits like performance impact for large blocks, rate limits, or what data exactly is returned (e.g., inscription IDs vs. full details).

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 extremely concise with two sentences: the first states the action, and the second provides a usage scenario. No extraneous information, front-loaded with the key purpose.

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, no annotations), the description adequately explains what it does and when to use it. However, it lacks details about the return format (e.g., list of inscription IDs or full objects) and does not contrast with paginated sibling tools, leaving some completeness gaps.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'block_height' refers to a specific block height, which matches the parameter name. While no additional constraints like min/max are given, the parameter is simple and the description is sufficient to understand 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 clearly states the tool retrieves all Bitcoin Ordinals inscriptions in a specific block, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like inscriptions_block_page_get, which likely serves a similar but paginated purpose.

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 guidance to use this tool for analyzing inscriptions at a particular block height, but it does not mention when to avoid it or suggest alternatives such as the paginated version or other inscription-related tools.

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