onchain_agent_list_chainsList all blockchains represented in the directory with resource counts, spotlight chains first (Base, Ethereum, Solana, COTI, Injective…). Returns (json): { total, chains: [{ name, count }] }. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| response_format | No | Output format: 'markdown' (human-readable, default) or 'json' (machine-readable). | markdown |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds value beyond the annotations by disclosing the exact return shape ({ total, chains: [{ name, count }] }) and the spotlight-first ordering. It also reaffirms the read-only nature, consistent with the annotations. Minor ambiguity: it says 'Returns (json)' while the response_format parameter defaults to markdown.
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 two tight sentences with no filler. The main function is front-loaded, followed by the exact output shape and a short safety note.
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 one optional parameter and no output schema, this description is complete. It specifies the resource scope, output format, ordering, and read-only nature, giving an agent everything needed to invoke it correctly.
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 single optional response_format parameter is already fully documented. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List all blockchains represented in the directory with resource counts'. It also clarifies the unique subject ('chains') against sibling list tools like onchain_agent_list_categories and onchain_agent_list_wiki_pages.
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 title 'See which chains are covered' and the description's explicit mention of 'resource counts' and 'spotlight chains first' give clear context for when this is useful. It does not name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the intended use case is evident.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource type or action: agents, resources, wiki pages, news, metrics, changes, and stack recommendations. The only mild overlap is between get_changes and recent_changes, but their descriptions clearly separate directory sync from an auditable event feed.
All tools share the onchain_agent_ prefix and mostly follow a clear verb_noun pattern: get_, list_, search_, recommend_. The one notable deviation is onchain_agent_recent_changes, which lacks the get_ prefix used by its sibling change-tracking tool.
Fourteen tools is well within the ideal range for a directory-style server. Each tool serves a distinct purpose—search, detail retrieval, list facets, news, metrics, change sync, and recommendations—and none feels redundant or filler.
The surface covers the domain thoroughly: discovery of agents and resources, detailed lookups, facets, wiki reference, news, metrics, deploy specs, change tracking, and stack recommendations. Since this is a read-only information server, the lack of write operations is not a gap.