Look up Avalanche RPC methods and API guides across C-Chain, P-Chain, X-Chain, Subnet-EVM, and node RPC docs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | No | RPC area to search. Defaults to all. | |
| limit | No | Maximum number of results (default: 8) | |
| query | Yes | RPC method, namespace, or task to look up |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It describes what it looks up and the scope, but does not mention return format, pagination, or that it is a read-only search. This is adequate but not rich; it doesn't contradict any annotations (none exist).
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 front-loads the action and resource. It contains zero filler and communicates scope efficiently.
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 no output schema, and the description does not explain what the response looks like (e.g., list of methods, links, code examples). The scope is clearly stated, but the lack of return-value context and differentiation from generic docs search leaves some gaps for an agent invoking 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?
Schema description coverage is 100% (all parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema—it repeats the chain scope already present in the chain property enum. No extra syntax or usage details are provided.
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 states a specific verb ('Look up') and resource ('Avalanche RPC methods and API guides') across defined chains (C-Chain, P-Chain, X-Chain, Subnet-EVM, node RPC docs). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like blockchain_lookup_* (blockchain data) or cli_lookup_command (CLI commands).
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 by naming the exact chains and doc areas it covers, implying when to use it (e.g., for RPC method documentation lookups). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name sibling tools, but the scope is sufficiently clear for an agent to choose it over generic docs search.
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.
