chain_info

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It lists all returned fields (chain ID, RPC, explorer, etc.) but does not disclose whether data is cached, dynamic, or has any side effects. For a read-only info tool, this is acceptable but could be improved.

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 a single sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. Every word is meaningful, and it is front-loaded with the key action and output items.

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?

Given the simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers the output. However, it could be more complete by mentioning whether the data reflects the current state or is cached, and whether it works for both testnet and mainnet.

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?

There are zero parameters (schema coverage 100%), so baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by enumerating the returned data, which helps the agent understand what to expect without needing parameter documentation.

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 it retrieves network identity (chain ID, RPC, explorer, native currency) and live head (latest block, gas price). It uses specific verbs and resources, distinguishing it from sibling tools like gas_price or get_block.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_block or gas_price. Usage is implied as a general chain information query, but no context on when-not-to-use or prerequisites is provided.

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