Manage RPC Configuration

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

Annotations set readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe modification tool. The description adds behavioral context: set-rpc helps avoid rate limits, reset-rpc can reset all if chain omitted. This provides useful guidance beyond the annotations, though it could mention the irreversible nature of reset more explicitly.

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 very concise, containing only two sentences. The first sentence states the overall purpose, and the second enumerates sub-actions with brief explanations. No extraneous words; each phrase 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?

Given no output schema, the description could be more complete by specifying what each action returns (e.g., confirmation messages or current settings). However, it covers the core functionality and parameter usage well, so it's mostly complete for a configuration tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant value by linking each action to required parameters (url for set-rpc, chain for set-rpc and get-rpc) and clarifying the behavior of reset-rpc with omitted chain. This enables correct parameter usage beyond schema constraints.

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: viewing and modifying fibx RPC configuration. It lists four specific sub-actions (set-rpc, get-rpc, reset-rpc, list) and their distinct roles, differentiating it from sibling tools which handle balances, transactions, swaps, etc.

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 explains when to use each sub-action: set-rpc to avoid rate limits, get-rpc to view current RPC, reset-rpc to reset (with note to omit chain for all), list to show all custom settings. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, but the context is sufficient for selection.

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