evm_get_supported_networks

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares that this is a safe read operation, and the description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., return format, potential variability). Since the tool is simple and the annotations cover safety, the description meets the minimum bar but does not enrich 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, making it immediately clear.

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 simple zero-parameter list tool with good annotations, the description is adequate. It could be slightly more specific about what the response looks like (e.g., network names, IDs), but the overall context of discovering supported networks is clear.

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 zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty properties object). The description does not need to explain parameter behavior, so the baseline of 4 is 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?

The description clearly specifies the action ('List'), the resource ('supported EVM networks'), and the context ('available for EVM tool operations'). It is distinct from sibling tools like market_get_chain_tvl and evm_get_chain_info, which serve different purposes.

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 that this tool should be used to discover which EVM networks are available before performing other EVM operations. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, leaving some ambiguity relative to similar tools like list_supported_chains.

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