get_blockchains

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 describes the tool as a read operation ('Get a list'), which implies it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or response format. The description adds some context about how the output can be used, but lacks details on the tool's operational behavior.

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 two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and usage guidelines without unnecessary details. It's front-loaded with the core action and follows with practical application, making it easy to parse. However, the second sentence is slightly long but remains informative.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but could be more complete. It explains what the tool does and how to use the output, but lacks details on response format, potential errors, or performance characteristics. For a basic list tool, it's functional but not exhaustive.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and usage. This aligns with the baseline expectation for a parameterless tool.

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 a list of all blockchains.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('list of all blockchains'), making the action explicit. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'get_blockchain_details' or 'get_coins' beyond mentioning them in usage context, so it's not fully distinctive.

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 guidance on when to use this tool: to obtain a list of blockchain names for further queries. It also names alternatives ('blockchain details endpoint' and 'Get UUID by contract address endpoint') for specific follow-up actions, clearly indicating when to use this vs. other tools.

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