Fetch complete source code of a Web3Auth integration example from GitHub.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Example name, e.g. 'React Quick Start' or 'Android Firebase' | |
| chain | No | Filter by blockchain family | |
| category | No | Filter by category | |
| platform | No | Filter by platform | |
| auth_method | No | Filter by auth method, e.g. 'auth0', 'firebase', 'google', 'grouped' |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent hints, so the description carries a lower burden. It adds useful context that the source code comes from GitHub and is 'complete', but does not disclose potential response size or external dependency behaviors beyond that.
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 with no filler words. It immediately states the action and the object, meeting conciseness and structural requirements perfectly.
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 has no required parameters and no output schema, the description could clarify whether at least one filter is needed or if name alone suffices to fetch an example. However, the schema itself provides comprehensive parameter documentation, and the tool's purpose is straightforward.
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 has 100% description coverage for all parameters, each with clear examples and enum definitions. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('complete source code of a Web3Auth integration example from GitHub'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_doc, get_sdk_reference, and search tools.
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 implies usage for retrieving example source code, and the sibling names provide context for alternatives. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs. other tools or mention any exclusions.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource: documentation pages, example code, SDK source, community posts, and docs search. The two search tools are clearly separated by source (docs vs community). No overlapping purposes.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: get_ for fetching specific resources, search_ for searching. Naming is uniform and predictable.
Five tools is well-scoped for a documentation-focused server. Each tool fills a distinct role without redundancy or unnecessary bloat.
The tool surface covers the full discovery and retrieval lifecycle for documentation, examples, SDK sources, and community content. No obvious missing operations for the stated purpose.
