List tools of the official hosted Avalanche MCP

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint:false, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: the rate limit of 60/min, the fixed set of ~48 tools, and the note that GitHub tools are not exposed. This enriches the agent's understanding without contradicting 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 dense but structured: it leads with the primary purpose, then enumerates tool families, and ends with rate limit and preference guidance. It packs significant detail into a few sentences without redundant phrasing. While it lists many examples, each adds clarity about the tool's coverage, so it earns its place.

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 parameterless discovery tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It specifies the endpoint, the content (~48 tools with examples), rate limits, exclusions, and the recommended next step (avax_hosted_call). An agent has everything needed to decide whether to call this tool and interpret its result.

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 has zero parameters and the schema is 100% covered (empty schema), so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it doesn't attempt to. It focuses on the content and usage, which is appropriate 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: 'List the ~48 tools exposed by Ava Labs' hosted MCP'. It provides a specific resource (the URL) and enumerates the tool families, distinguishing it from siblings like avax_hosted_call or avax_search_docs. The verb 'List' is specific and the scope is well-defined.

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 gives explicit usage context: it advises 'prefer local tools when equivalent' and directs the agent to 'Then call avax_hosted_call' after listing. It also clarifies scope exclusions ('GitHub code-search tools are documented but not currently exposed'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool vs. specialized siblings beyond the general 'prefer local' guidance, so it's slightly incomplete.

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