get_ltc_block_tip

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by specifying the tool is backed by a configurable indexer, notes the block time context, and references an issue explaining why the tool was missing. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Description is concise and front-loaded, but includes some extraneous details (e.g., issue reference, env var name). Could be slightly more streamlined, but overall efficient and well-structured.

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 no output schema and no parameters, the description covers the return fields, configuration options, and behavioral context. It mentions the tool is a mirror of a Bitcoin counterpart and explains block time implications. Minor omission: does not explicitly describe output format (e.g., JSON object), but the listed fields imply structure.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters and 100% coverage, so bar for parameter semantics is high. The description does not need to add parameter info; it appropriately focuses on output fields and configuration. Baseline 4 for zero-param tool.

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?

Description clearly states it is a read-only tool to get the current Litecoin mainnet chain tip, mirroring get_btc_block_tip, and specifies returned fields (height, 64-hex hash, timestamp, ageSeconds, optional MTP + difficulty). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_btc_block_tip and get_ltc_chain_tips.

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?

Provides context about the tool being a mirror of get_btc_block_tip, notes the block time difference (2.5 min vs 10 min), and mentions configurability. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it give exclusions.

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