Get node / network info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds behavioral detail by naming the specific info.* endpoints contacted and the returned fields, which goes beyond the bare annotation. It does not contradict the annotations and aligns with the openWorldHint by mentioning the public API.

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 concise sentences, with the core endpoint and data list front-loaded and the use case immediately after. No fluff or repetition; every clause adds value.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, specific endpoints, returned data, and a use case. It does not explicitly state the return JSON format, but the listed fields strongly imply it, making it adequately complete.

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 input schema fully covers the only parameter (network) with an enum, default, and description. The description only adds a tangential reference to 'which network you're on', offering no substantive new semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 states a specific action ('Query the public API node's info.* endpoints') and enumerates the exact data returned (node version, network ID/name, blockchain IDs, tx fees). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like avax_get_balance or avax_pchain_* which target specific data types.

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 explicitly notes it is 'Useful to confirm which network you're on and current P-Chain fees', providing clear contextual guidance for when to invoke it. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or list when-not-to-use, but for a read-only info tool this is sufficient.

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