Look up Avalanche CLI, Platform CLI, and tmpnet command guidance in the docs. Returns cited command references and task docs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cli | No | CLI surface to search. Defaults to all. | |
| limit | No | Maximum number of results (default: 8) | |
| query | Yes | Command, flag, or task to look up |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations available, the description takes on the burden of disclosure. It states the return type ('Returns cited command references and task docs'), which is helpful, but it does not mention read-only nature, potential errors, or other behavioral aspects. This leaves some gaps in transparency.
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 a single concise sentence (18 words) that front-loads the action and purpose. It contains no redundancy or extraneous information, making it highly efficient.
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 lookup tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the core purpose and return value. It could add more detail about the source or citation format, but the schema handles parameter specifics, making it sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.
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 input schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter-specific value, merely mentioning the CLI surfaces that correspond to the 'cli' enum, which does not go beyond the schema.
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 states the tool's function: 'Look up Avalanche CLI, Platform CLI, and tmpnet command guidance in the docs.' It identifies a specific resource (CLI documentation) and distinguishes itself from sibling docs search tools by focusing on CLI command references and cited returns.
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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when seeking CLI command guidance for Avalanche CLI, Platform CLI, or tmpnet. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it, so it lacks exclusions but remains unambiguous.
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.
Many tools are redundant due to compatibility aliases (avalanche_docs_* vs docs_*, blockchain_get_* vs onchain_lookup) and overlapping functionality (chain_stats vs onchain_query, onchain_activity vs onchain_query ops, acp_list vs info_acps). Agents may struggle to select the correct tool when multiple appear to serve the same purpose, despite descriptions clarifying aliases.
Naming patterns are inconsistent: some tools use noun_verb (acp_list, docs_fetch), some use verb_noun (build_plan), and others use prefixes like platform_get_, info_get_, and onchain_. The mix of styles (snake_case, noun phrases, verb phrases) makes it hard to predict tool names.
With 48 tools, the count is high and inflated by compatibility aliases and granular platform_get_* wrappers. The scope spans multiple domains (docs, on-chain, platform API, ACPs, console), which could be better modularized. Many tools are trivial variants (e.g., platform_get_block vs platform_get_block_by_height) adding unnecessary bulk.
The server provides thorough read-only coverage for Avalanche: docs search, ACP management, on-chain lookups, indexed stats, platform API getters, and console flow guidance. While there is no transaction submission (likely intentional), the surface covers most queries a developer would need, with minor gaps like detailed token transfer history.
