Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only listing action but does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or behavior when no chains are specified. The only added behavioral detail is the filter format.

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 that clearly states the main purpose and adds a valuable filtering option. No wasted words; every element earns its place.

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 the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential usage. It could explicitly state that omitting chains lists all tools, but that is reasonably implied by 'Optionally filter'. The examples of bridges and DEXes further clarify the scope.

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 documents the 'chains' parameter with 100% coverage, including the comma-separated format. The description essentially repeats this information ('comma-separated') without adding new semantics, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 lists available tools, with specific examples (bridges, DEXes) that distinguish it from sibling tools like get_tokens. The optional chain filter adds scope, making the purpose 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 implies the tool is for listing tools with optional filtering by chains, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. It provides contextual usage (comma-separated chains) but lacks exclusions or explicit sibling comparisons.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.