Check whether a given chain has finished bootstrapping on the node.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | Yes | The chain ID or alias to check (e.g., "X", "P", "C") | |
| network | No | The Avalanche network to query (default: mainnet) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core check but does not mention that it is a read-only operation, what the return value looks like (e.g., boolean), or how errors are handled (e.g., invalid chain). For a simple status check, this is a minimal but incomplete disclosure.
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 sentence that states the purpose directly and front-loads the verb 'Check'. It contains no fluff or redundancy; every word contributes to the meaning, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 is simple with only two well-documented parameters, but there is no output schema and the description does not explicitly state the return type or any behavioral nuances. While the main purpose is clear, the lack of return-value details and context around bootstrapping completeness leaves the description somewhat incomplete.
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% for both parameters ('chain' and 'network'), so the schema already documents their meaning and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but this is acceptable given the baseline of 3 when the schema covers all parameters.
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 the verb 'Check' with a specific resource ('a given chain') and a specific condition ('has finished bootstrapping on the node'). This clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling info_* tools like info_peers or info_get_node_version, which check other node aspects.
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 the tool is used to verify chain bootstrapping status but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any conditions for use. There are no exclusions or references to sibling tools, leaving usage context only implied by the name and description.
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.
