get_networksThe EVM networks where Soheil Router is live: chain id, name, our contract, its fee and fee wallet, and the contracts a trade may call. No API key needed.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_networks"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds real context by stating the exact data returned and that no API key is required. It does not describe the response shape (array vs object), but with no output schema the field enumeration carries most of the value.
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?
A single tight sentence: the resource and its field list come first, and the access note trails as a supporting clause. No redundant or filler wording.
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 zero-argument lookup with no output schema, listing the returned fields and the no-auth requirement gives an agent enough to call it correctly. Only the concrete response shape (list of objects) is left implicit.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Implicitly, the absence of parameters signals an unfiltered global listing, consistent with the description's framing.
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 names the specific resource and scope: EVM networks where Soheil Router is live, and enumerates the returned fields (chain id, name, contract, fee, fee wallet, trade contracts). This separates it clearly from siblings like get_quote and get_trade_status, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'List'.
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?
Usage is implied: call this to discover supported chains, contract addresses, and fee details before trading, and the note 'No API key needed' signals accessibility. There is no explicit when-to-use versus siblings or any exclusion, so the agent must infer the routing.
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.