portal_get_head

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 explains the tool returns the latest head block or slot but does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation, nor does it describe response structure or any side effects. While the tool is simple, the lack of explicit read-only indication leaves some transparency gap.

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 well-structured with sections (COMMON USER ASKS, FIRST CHOICE, WHEN TO USE, DON'T USE, EXAMPLES) that front-load key information. While slightly lengthy, every section adds value, and the overall structure aids quick comprehension.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It defines purpose, usage boundaries, and provides examples. It does not describe return values, but that is acceptable when no output schema is present and the tool returns a simple numeric value. No additional context seems necessary.

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 100%, and the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it provides concrete examples of network values and explains the 'type' parameter's default and enum options. This helps agents understand parameter usage beyond what the schema alone provides.

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 explicitly states 'Get just the latest indexed head block or slot for a network,' providing a clear verb and specific resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning as 'FIRST CHOICE FOR...' and listing what not to use, demonstrating clear differentiation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use ('You only need the current block or slot number.'), when not to use ('You want to know if the network is caught up...'), and positions it as first choice for a specific scenario. Examples further clarify usage.

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