get_supported_chains

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 adds valuable context beyond basic functionality by detailing the underlying mechanisms (deBridge DLN for buys, Across or deBridge adapters for sells), which helps the agent understand the tool's operational context. However, it lacks information on potential rate limits, error conditions, or response 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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by additional context in the second. Both sentences are necessary and efficient, with zero waste or redundancy, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 complexity (simple read operation with no parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool does and provides trading context, but it could improve by mentioning the return format (e.g., list structure) or any prerequisites, though this is less critical for a zero-parameter tool.

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 has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no need for parameter documentation. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and context without redundant parameter details, earning a baseline score of 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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: 'Get the list of supported chains for cross-chain trading on Omni.fun.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('list of supported chains'), and domain context ('cross-chain trading on Omni.fun'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_token or search_tokens.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool by explaining its role in cross-chain trading (buys use deBridge DLN, sells use Across or deBridge). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among sibling tools, such as get_how_to_buy or simulate_trade, which might be relevant for trading-related queries.

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