chain_info

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose cost ('free') and outlines the payload contents (chains, limits, prices), which is useful for a read-only metadata call, but says nothing about rate limits, auth, or freshness of the price data.

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?

It is a single short sentence, which is appropriately sized, but the trailing '(free) (free)' is duplicated boilerplate that wastes space and suggests templated generation. The redundant token should have been removed.

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 and no annotations, the description is the only source of information, and listing the returned fields (chains, limits, prices) partially substitutes for a return-value spec. However it omits the relationship to chain_state/chain_call and any usage trigger, leaving the agent to guess when this call is warranted.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the baseline this scores 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the empty schema already communicates.

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 the resource and its contents specifically: supported chains, limits and prices for the on-chain data lane. It reads as the metadata/discovery counterpart to siblings chain_state and chain_call, though it never names them or explicitly contrasts itself. The jargon 'on-chain data lane' is the only ambiguity.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all — no statement that this should be consulted before chain_call/chain_state, and no alternatives or exclusions mentioned. An agent can infer it is an info endpoint, but the definition provides nothing explicit.

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