list_chainsList all EVM chain slugs and Blockscout host URLs supported by this pack (20+ chains: eth, polygon, arbitrum, base, optimism, bnb, gnosis, zksync-era, etc.). Use to discover valid chain values for other tools.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chains | Yes | List of supported chains |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds detail about output content (chain slugs and host URLs), which is useful beyond annotations.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with key action and result, no unnecessary words. Every part 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 no parameters and presence of an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and its purpose. Sibling context doesn't require more detail.
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?
No parameters exist; schema coverage is 100% with empty properties. Baseline for 0 params is 4; description doesn't need to add parameter info.
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 explicitly states the tool lists all EVM chain slugs and Blockscout host URLs, with specific examples. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by its focus on chain discovery.
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 directly tells the agent to use this tool to discover valid chain values for other tools, providing explicit when-to-use guidance.
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.
The tool set includes multiple overlapping tools for predictions (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, etc.) and data lookups (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded), and mixes blockchain tools with unrelated services, making it difficult for an agent to select the correct tool.
Tool names follow no consistent pattern: some use verb_noun (get_address, list_chains), others are multi-word phrases (ai_visibility_check, compare_entities), and styles mix snake_case and camelCase erratically.
With 39 tools, the surface is bloated for a blockchain explorer. Many tools are unrelated to blockchain, inflating the count well beyond what is necessary for the server's stated purpose.
The server is named 'Blockscout' but includes mostly non-blockchain tools, leaving the blockchain domain severely incomplete. Even the blockchain-specific tools miss common operations like event logs or internal transactions.