Find EVM chain

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by disclosing the data source (chainid.network) and the shape of the returned record, which matters since there is no output schema.

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?

One compact sentence, front-loaded with the action and lookup keys, with the returned fields and source trailing. No filler or redundant restatement of the name or title.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields, and annotations carry the read-only safety profile. It stops short of noting behavior for unknown chains or ambiguous short-name matches, a minor gap for a lookup 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema contributes nothing about the single 'query' parameter. The description compensates by specifying the three accepted identifier forms (chain ID, short name, or name), which is exactly the missing semantic detail.

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?

States a specific verb ('look up') and resource ('EVM chain') plus the accepted lookup keys (chain ID, short name, name) and the payload returned (native currency, RPCs, explorers). No sibling tool offers chain lookup, so an agent can route to this one unambiguously.

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 only implied: the agent infers it should call this when it needs chain metadata. There are no explicit when/when-not statements and no alternatives named, but the lookup-key enumeration does hint at the input forms that are acceptable.

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