find_rpcReturn RPC endpoints for a chain. https_only=true filters out ws:// + http:// only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| https_only | No | Default true | |
| chain_id_or_short_name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rpcs | Yes | Filtered RPC endpoint URLs | |
| chain_id | Yes | EVM chain ID | |
| short_name | Yes | Short chain name |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds specific behavioral context about https_only filtering, which is beyond what annotations convey. No contradictions.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every part contributes value.
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 low complexity, rich annotations, and existence of output schema, the description provides sufficient context. It does not explain return format, but output schema covers that.
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 coverage is 50% (only https_only has description). The description explains https_only effect ('filters out ws:// + http:// only'), adding meaning. However, chain_id_or_short_name lacks explicit detail, though examples help. Partially compensates.
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's purpose: 'Return RPC endpoints for a chain.' It is specific and distinguishes from siblings like get_chain or list_chains by focusing on RPC endpoints.
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 gives a clear context for the https_only parameter, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. It implies usage for RPC needs but lacks direct comparison.
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.
Tools have distinct purposes with clear descriptions, but ask_pipeworx_beta currently duplicates ask_pipeworx, and the multiple prediction market tools could be confusing without careful reading.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun or noun_verb pattern, with no mixing of conventions.
34 tools is high for a single server, covering chain data, Pipeworx research, and prediction markets. While well-organized, the breadth pushes the boundary of manageable scope.
The tool set covers major query operations for chains, entities, and data sources, with subscription and memory features. Minor gaps like lack of chain creation are acceptable given the server's focus on data retrieval.