blockrun_surf

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds worthwhile behavioral detail: pricing settled in USDC per call, method auto-routing based on body presence, and pre-validation behavior that returns a 400 rather than a charge for missing required fields. This goes beyond annotations and helps the agent understand side effects and error behavior.

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 longer than average, but the structure is effective: purpose, coverage, pricing, common paths, and routing behavior are clearly separated. The extra details about cost and error handling are relevant for a paid API gateway. Minor redundancy exists, but no sentence feels wasted.

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 broad 83-endpoint gateway with no output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: what data domains are available, how to route methods, what parameters look like, cost implications, and where to find the full endpoint catalog. It could include output-shape guidance, but that is not required given its absence from output schema and the explicit catalog link.

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%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds value by showing concrete endpoint path examples such as 'market/price?symbol=BTC' and the onchain/sql body shape, clarifying how path, params, and body interact. This materially helps an agent construct valid calls.

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 tool as a unified crypto data gateway via Surf, listing concrete coverage areas (CEX, on-chain SQL, prediction markets, social mindshare) and example paths. It lacks an explicit contrast with sibling data tools, so it is clear but does not fully disambiguate among similar siblings.

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 gives common paths and method auto-routing, which implies when to use the tool for data lookups. However, it does not provide explicit when/when-not guidance relative to sibling tools like blockrun_markets, blockrun_price, or blockrun_polymarket. The usage context is present but not stated as a decision rule.

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