get_chain_info

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does not state that this is a read-only, side-effect-free lookup, nor whether it requires auth or has rate limits. Enumerating the returned data categories is mildly informative but is closer to a return-value summary than behavioral disclosure.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that lists exactly the four categories of data returned, with zero filler. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.

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 simple zero-required-parameter lookup with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the return content, which compensates for the missing output schema. It stops short of usage context or a read-only statement, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is absent.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single optional 'chain' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the omit-for-all behavior. The description adds nothing about the filter, so the baseline 3 for schema-covered parameters applies.

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 names a specific verb (Get) and enumerates the exact resource contents (supported chains, chain IDs, DEXes, capabilities), so an agent immediately knows what this returns. It is distinguishable from write-oriented siblings like buy_token and from narrower lookups like get_hl_perp_dexes, though it doesn't explicitly call out those relatives.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: it never says this is the discovery/metadata call to run before selecting a chain for buy_token, sell_token, or bridge operations. No alternatives or exclusions are named, leaving the agent to infer the call context.

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