get_chain_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful fact that the payload includes DEXes and capabilities, but discloses nothing further about rate limits, caching, or freshness of the chain list.

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 with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple no-argument discovery tool, though it is terse enough that it offers little structure beyond the enumeration.

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 read-only, single-optional-param discovery tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description covers what the agent needs to decide to call it. Missing only minor details such as whether the result is static or refreshed.

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' filter is fully documented in the schema, including examples and the 'omit for all chains' behavior. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and enumerates the resource contents: supported chains, chain IDs, DEXes, and capabilities. An agent immediately knows this is a reference/discovery tool. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, but no sibling overlaps this purpose.

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?

Usage is implied by the enumeration of what it returns – an agent can infer it should call this when it needs to know supported chains or DEXes before trading. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives.

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