Get all blockchains that exist on the P-Chain (paginated; use limit/offset)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max items to return (default: 50). Use with "offset" to page. | |
| offset | No | Number of items to skip from the start (default: 0). | |
| network | No | 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 does disclose pagination behavior, but it does not mention read-only status, default network (mainnet), response format, error handling, rate limits, or any other behavioral traits. For a simple getter, the missing details are not risky, but the description adds only minimal behavioral context beyond the schema.
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, front-loaded sentence: 'Get all blockchains that exist on the P-Chain (paginated; use limit/offset)'. It conveys the essential purpose and a key usage detail without any wasted words. Perfectly 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?
Given that all parameters are optional and well-documented in the schema, and there is no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and pagination behavior adequately. It does not explicitly describe the return format (e.g., an array of blockchain objects), but for a straightforward list retrieval, this is a minor gap. The description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
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 schema already describes all three parameters (limit, offset, network) with clear descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The description's mention of 'paginated; use limit/offset' reinforces what the schema already states but adds no new semantic detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 action ('Get'), the specific resource ('all blockchains that exist on the P-Chain'), and even adds the pagination detail. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like platform_get_subnets (which lists subnets, not blockchains) and blockchain_lookup_chain (which looks up a specific chain). The verb+resource+scope is specific and 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 clearly indicates when to use this tool: when you need to retrieve all blockchains on the P-Chain. The parenthetical '(paginated; use limit/offset)' provides guidance on paging through the full list. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or describe when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.
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.
