Builder Console flow knowledge. Call with NO flow to list every flow (summaries + deep-links); call with a flow key to explain it (ordered steps, equivalent CLI, whether it signs transactions, deep-link). Flows: create-l1, convert-to-l1, validator-manager, ictt, faucet, multisig, staking, transfers, interchain-kit-local.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| flow | No | Flow key to explain. Omit to list all flows. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description details the behavior of both invocation modes, including the content of the output (ordered steps, CLI equivalents, transaction signing indicator, deep-links). Since no annotations are provided, the description fully communicates the tool's effect. It does not mention whether the tool makes network calls or modifies state, but the output descriptions imply it is a read-only knowledge retrieval tool.
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 sentences, with the first sentence front-loading the key behavioral distinction and output specifics, and the second sentence listing the flow keys. Every word adds value, and the structure is easy to parse.
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?
The tool has a simple interface (one optional parameter) and no output schema. The description adequately conveys what the agent can expect from each invocation mode, including the type of information (summaries, deep-links, steps, CLI, etc.). It does not specify the exact output format (e.g., plain text vs JSON), but the level of detail is sufficient for an agent to decide when to use this tool.
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 has a high coverage (100%) with a description for the flow parameter. The tool description adds contextual meaning by explaining the differences between omitting and including the parameter, and by listing the supported flow keys. It also provides details about the output content for each mode, which goes beyond the schema's parameter description.
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 specifies two distinct operations: listing all flows with summaries and deep-links, and explaining a specific flow with ordered steps, CLI equivalent, transaction signing info, and deep-link. It lists all valid flow keys, making the tool's domain concrete. The tool is distinct from sibling tools, which focus on blockchain data retrieval.
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 explicitly states when to omit the flow parameter (to list) and when to include it (to explain). This provides clear usage guidance for both modes. However, it does not mention any scenarios where this tool should not be used, but given the context, alternatives are not obvious.
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.
