MoltNode by Chord

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing what comes back (addresses, decimals, verified flag) and warning that ticker collisions are common, though it says nothing about result counts or rate limits.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core capability, with the caveat and return fields following. Every clause 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so partially, naming addresses, decimals and verification status and hinting at multiple matches via the ticker warning. It stops short of describing result ordering or how many matches to expect.

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%, and both parameters are documented there. The description restates the chain list already present in the enum and the query formats already in the schema, so it adds little semantic meaning beyond the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb (find) and resource (token) plus the three accepted identifier forms (symbol, name, address) and the scope of chains. No sibling tool performs token lookup, and the description makes the tool's niche 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 when to reach for it (resolving a token identifier before other operations) and adds a practical caveat about similar tickers, but never names an alternative or states when not to use it. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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

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

Annotations already mark it readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the response bundles an ERC-20 approval transaction, a simulation run from the taker wallet, and the fact that supplying taker changes the payload. Auth and no-side-effect behavior are both made explicit.

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?

One dense paragraph with purpose front-loaded and zero filler; the run-on third clause slightly blurs the amount/zero-address details, but every sentence 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating what comes back (tx, approval, simulation) and how to use it. For a 6-param quote tool this leaves the agent nothing essential missing.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented. The description restates amount-as-smallest-unit and zero-address-as-native, which the schema already covers, and adds only a weak hint about taker's effect on the returned payload. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: best swap route across the chain's DEXs, plus the unsigned transaction, approval, and simulation. Explicitly scopes itself against the sibling send_raw_transaction ('Nothing is sent'), so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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?

Clearly frames the when-not ('Nothing is sent: sign with your own key, then send_raw_transaction'), naming the alternative and the follow-up step. It stops short of saying when to prefer this quote tool over other routes or when to omit taker, so it is clear context rather than exhaustive routing guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return denomination detail (wei and whole coins), which is useful context beyond the annotations, though no rate-limit or address-validation behavior is disclosed.

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?

A single tight sentence, front-loaded with the resource and ending with the return format. Zero waste.

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?

Adequate for a simple read-only tool with fully documented params and no output schema, but it omits the wei-to-coin conversion/decimals context and any error behavior (e.g., invalid address), leaving some gaps.

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 100%, with each parameter documented and chain enum provided, so baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about parameter format or the multi-chain scope beyond what the schema explains.

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?

States a specific resource (native-coin balance), the target (an address on an EVM chain), and the return format (wei and whole coins). Clearly distinct from siblings like chord_find_token or get_block_number.

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?

Usage is implied by the narrow purpose but there is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance. Siblings are mostly unrelated, so routing risk is low, keeping this at minimum viable.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the genuinely useful disclosure that the result is a decimal integer rather than the hex string EVM RPC normally returns — important since there is no output schema. No mention of freshness, caching, or rate limits.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the resource and ending with the format detail. Zero filler and nothing left dangling.

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?

For a single-parameter read with full annotation coverage, the return format is the one thing an agent could not infer elsewhere, and the description supplies it. The only gap is the absence of any routing guidance relative to rpc_call.

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% and the single 'chain' parameter has a documented enum of 29 slugs, so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the parameter beyond what the schema already states, making the baseline 3 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?

States a precise resource and scope: 'the latest block number of an EVM chain', plus the return format. The resource is specific enough that an agent can distinguish it from get_balance or rpc_call without opening a schema, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use guidance at all. With rpc_call and list_chains as siblings, the description never says why an agent should prefer this over a raw eth_blockNumber RPC call or when a chain slug is required.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the fields returned and that the result also flags which chains Chord trades on, a cross-domain behavior an agent could not infer from annotations alone.

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 dense sentences with no filler; the enumeration and the 'call this first' routing instruction are both front-loaded and each sentence 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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by naming the returned fields and the coverage scope (every chain MoltNode serves). Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema cannot carry parameter meaning; the baseline for a 0-param tool applies. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed and instead spends its words on the shape of the result.

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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (chains) and enumerates the returned fields (slug, name, chainId, family, native coin, endpoint), plus the extra signal of which chains Chord trades on. The MoltNode/Chord duality is unmistakable against siblings like chord_find_token or get_balance.

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?

'Call this first for valid chain slugs' gives an explicit ordering/prerequisite rule, telling the agent this is the discovery entry point. It stops short of naming when-not-to-use or an alternative tool, but none of the siblings plausibly substitutes for it.

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

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds only the no-API-key fact and chain-family method conventions; it says nothing about rate limits, error responses, unsupported methods, or which calls actually mutate state — notable gaps for an unrestricted RPC proxy. No contradiction with the annotations, since eth_sendRawTransaction-style methods genuinely can be destructive.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, with no filler. Slightly terse given the breadth of the tool, but every clause carries information.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, an open-world annotation, and arbitrary JSON-RPC return payloads, the description should note that response shape depends on the method invoked and flag any reliability caveats (timeouts, unsupported methods). It covers the essentials but leaves the agent guessing about return handling.

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% and the chain enum plus method/params descriptions are thorough, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value for the 'method' parameter by explaining the EVM vs Solana/Sui naming split, which the schema does not, earning it above baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Call any JSON-RPC 2.0 method on a chain through MoltNode') plus a differentiator ('no API key'). It is clearly a generic pass-through, distinguishable in kind from the specific siblings (get_balance, get_block_number), though it never names those siblings or says to prefer them.

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?

'EVM chains use eth_* methods; Solana and Sui use their own' gives real guidance on choosing the method string per chain family. However, it offers no when-to-use-this vs the sibling wrappers (get_balance, send_raw_transaction, chord_swap_quote), so an agent must infer that this is the low-level escape hatch.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is an irreversible, network-facing write. The description adds only the return shape (hash + explorer link) and the fact it is routed through MoltNode; it does not elaborate on irreversibility, failure/revert behavior, or rate limits. With annotations carrying the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 short sentences with zero filler: the action and input format come first, the return value second. Every clause earns its place and nothing is repeated unnecessarily.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully fills that gap by naming the return (transaction hash and explorer link). For a simple two-parameter broadcast tool that is close to complete; the missing pieces are when-to-use routing versus rpc_call and any note about the 28 supported chains.

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% and both required parameters (chain enum, signedTransaction with 0x pattern) are fully documented in the schema. The description restates '0x-prefixed raw bytes' rather than adding format, encoding, or chain-selection detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 precise verb (broadcast) plus resource (a signed transaction, 0x-prefixed raw bytes) and scopes it to an EVM chain via MoltNode. An agent can immediately tell this is a write/broadcast operation rather than a read like get_balance or rpc_call. It stops short of naming a sibling or contrasting conditions, so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The phrase 'signed transaction' implies the transaction must be signed beforehand, but the description never says where signing happens or how this differs from a generic rpc_call that could also submit a raw transaction. No prerequisites, no alternatives, no exclusions.

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