query-network

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a generic query execution tool requiring pre-checks of OpenAPI specs and network availability, which adds useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or response formats, leaving gaps for a tool with 6 parameters.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences that are front-loaded: the first states the purpose and usage condition, the second provides prerequisites. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more streamlined by integrating the prerequisites more seamlessly.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It covers usage context and prerequisites well but lacks details on behavioral traits like error handling or response structure. For a generic query tool with many siblings, more guidance on typical use cases would enhance completeness.

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%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema, only implying that 'networkName' and 'path' relate to OpenAPI specs. It doesn't explain how parameters interact or provide examples, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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: 'Execute a generic network gRPC Gateway query against chain APIs.' It specifies the action (execute query) and target (chain APIs via gRPC Gateway). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'contract-query' or 'get-balance' beyond being a fallback option.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'when you cannot find the required information from other tools.' It instructs to first check available queries via the OpenAPI spec and networks via the networks resource, establishing clear prerequisites and when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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