list_supported_networksReturn the mainnet account and network catalog documented from the current Aperture source tree. Do not treat a matching ticker as proof of cross-network compatibility.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| family | No | Optional exact family filter such as evm, bitcoin-utxo, solana, move, or stellar. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the call read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds that the catalog is sourced from the current Aperture source tree and cautions that matching tickers are not evidence of cross-network compatibility. This gives an agent important context about the data source and interpretation beyond the annotation flags.
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 concise sentences; the first front-loads the primary purpose and the second delivers a valuable caution without padding. Every sentence earns its place.
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 one optional, fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description covers the input, the source of data, and one key interpretation caveat. It does not enumerate the return shape, but the catalog object is adequately identified for a low-plexity operation.
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 only parameter, family, is already fully documented in the schema with an exact filter and examples (evm, bitcoin-utxo, solana, move, stellar). With 100% schema description coverage, the description does not need to add parameter detail, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Return') and names an exact resource: the mainnet account and network catalog documented from the current Aperture source tree. This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling list operations like list_features or list_articles; even without naming an alternative, the object is unambiguous.
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 implies its use: querying the curated mainnet catalog for Aperture networks, and the warning adds a constraint on how to interpret results. It does not explicitly state when to prefer it over sibling tools or identify alternatives, so usage guidance is mostly implied.
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.
Most tools target distinct resource types (product, security, features, articles, networks, release, screens, entry points), with get_/list_ pairs clearly separating single-item retrieval from collection listing. The only mild ambiguity is between get_app_screen and list_app_entry_points, since both describe UI navigation surfaces, though their descriptions keep screen semantics vs entry-point catalogs separate.
The dominant get_<singular> and list_<plural> pattern is clear and predictable for 10 of 12 tools. 'search' and 'fetch' break the noun-oriented pattern and are less descriptive of their distinct roles, but they are common enough verbs that the overall set remains readable.
With 12 tools, the server is well-scoped for a wallet knowledge base: each get tool corresponds to a distinct knowledge category and list tools cover discoverability. No tool feels redundant, and the count is squarely in the appropriate range.
The surface covers the major knowledge domains an agent needs: product identity, security model, features, articles, supported networks, release info, app screens, and entry points, plus search/fetch for open-ended lookup. Minor asymmetries exist (e.g., get_app_screen has no listing counterpart, and list_app_entry_points has no single-item get), but these are workable through search.