Get chain status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond that: it lists what data will be returned (chainId, block number, base fee, gas price) and supports network selection via a flexible set of keys or a full RPC URL. This is useful for an agent to anticipate the tool's behavior without opening the schema. It does not describe error handling or output format, but the annotation coverage plus the listed fields make this a strong 4.

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?

Two sentences, zero fluff. The first sentence states the tool's function and return fields; the second enumerates network options. Every phrase earns its place, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the network details. It is efficiently structured for quick parsing.

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 tool with one optional parameter (defaulted), no required inputs, no output schema, and a read-only/idempotent annotation set, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what it does, what it returns, and how to specify the network. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 schema description for the single parameter 'network' is identical to the tool description's network line (100% schema coverage). The tool description repeats that information verbatim rather than adding new parameter semantics. It does provide the use-case context ('verify RPC works'), but that is more tied to the tool purpose than to parameter meaning. With full schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get') and resource ('live status of an Avalanche EVM chain'), and enumerates the exact data returned: reported chainId, latest block number, base fee, gas price. It also names the primary use case (verify RPC works, pick gas settings), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like avax_get_block or avax_get_balance that target specific blocks or balances.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Useful to verify an RPC works and to pick gas settings.' This gives clear context for invocation. It does not name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but since the tool is unique (no other chain-status sibling), the guidance is adequate and no alternative routing is necessary.

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