lifi_get_chains

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate that. The description adds the LI.FI-specific context and the purpose, but doesn't disclose additional behavior such as response format, pagination, or rate limits. Since this is a simple read-only list, the description suffices but doesn't go beyond the annotations significantly.

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 sentence of 12 words, front-loaded with the action verb 'Get'. Every word earns its place, and there is no unnecessary information. It is appropriately sized for the simplicity of the tool.

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 read-only tool, the description is complete enough: it states what chains are returned (LI.FI-supported for cross-chain bridging). There is no output schema to explain return values, but the tool's output is easily inferred. A minor gap is the lack of detail on the exact format of the chain list, but the description is still adequate for an agent to select and invoke the 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 zero parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and the baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4. The description adds value by clearly defining what the tool returns without needing parameter elaboration.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('list of chains supported by LI.FI for cross-chain bridging'), which immediately distinguishes it from generic chain listing tools and other LI.FI tools. The qualifier 'for cross-chain bridging' makes the scope 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?

Usage is implied by the description—if you need the list of chains LI.FI supports for bridging, this is the tool—but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any mention of exclusions or sibling tools. The purpose is clear, so a score of 3 (implied usage) is appropriate.

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