get_chain_parameters

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, providing the safety profile. The description adds useful return-format context ('structured fee information similar to gas price queries') but doesn't disclose other behavioral traits such as authentication needs or rate limits. No contradiction with 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 concise, two sentences, and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every word adds value, and it is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and return-type orientation, though it doesn't enumerate all possible returned fields. Given the low complexity and annotations, this is almost complete; a slightly more detailed explanation of the returned structure could make it a 5.

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% for the single 'network' parameter, and the schema already explains it defaults to mainnet. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource 'current chain parameters' and explicitly mentions 'Energy and Bandwidth unit prices,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_energy_prices and get_bandwidth_prices. It effectively communicates the tool's scope and purpose.

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 usage context by stating it returns fee information similar to gas price queries, but it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_chain_info or get_energy_prices. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, so it's adequate but not explicit.

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