getOneBlock

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context, such as whether the response includes transactions, the format of block data, or any rate limits. With annotations present the bar is lower, but zero added context yields a below-average score.

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 one short sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded, stating the core purpose without fluff.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and numerous sibling tools, the description is too sparse. It does not specify what 'a single block' entails (e.g., full block vs. header, inclusion of transactions), nor does it provide context on how to choose this tool among siblings. The schema provides some param details, but the overall tool behavior remains under-specified.

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 67% (authToken and blockHeight are described, chainName only has a const). Since coverage is not above 80%, the description should compensate for missing parameter details, but it adds none. The schema itself is mostly clear, but the description fails to enhance parameter understanding for the undocumented chainName.

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 identifies the action ('Get') and the resource ('a single block'), with a scope modifier ('single') that distinguishes it from multi-block tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like getBlockHeights or getBlockTransactions, which also relate to blocks.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios for using getBlockHeights, getBlockTransactions, or other sibling tools, nor does it state any exclusions. The agent is left without decision criteria.

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