singularityagent__chainsList every chain Singularity can talk to, with its family, chain id, native asset, and aliases. Use this to map a user's informal chain name onto a canonical id before other calls.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Filter by name, id, alias, symbol, or chain id. | |
| family | No | Restrict to one chain family. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / additionalPropertiesPrevious value: -trueNew value: +falseInput schema / propertiesAdded value: +{
+ "family": {
+ "description": "Restrict to one chain family.",
+ "enum": [
+ "evm",
+ "svm",
+ "utxo",
+ "cosmos"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "query": {
+ "description": "Filter by name, id, alias, symbol, or chain id.",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying the output fields and the sequencing role ('before other calls'). It does not contradict the read-only or open-world hints, though it could have noted that the chain list may change over time.
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?
Two efficient sentences: the first states the action and output, the second states when to use it. Every word earns its place, with the core purpose front-loaded.
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 simple read-only list tool with 100% schema coverage and optional filters, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what it returns, why to call it, and its role in the workflow. No output schema is needed since the description names the fields.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond the schema; it only recontextualizes the query parameter for the mapping use case.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('every chain Singularity can talk to') and enumerates the returned fields (family, chain id, native asset, aliases). It also names the primary use case (mapping informal chain names to canonical ids), which distinguishes it from siblings like singularityagent__chain_liveness.
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?
It provides clear context: use this to map a user's informal chain name onto a canonical id before other calls. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare against alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.