get_chain_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and it does indicate the operation is a retrieval and what output fields to expect. It does not disclose anything beyond the returned fields, such as network availability, auth requirements, or response structure, so transparency is adequate but limited.

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?

One compact sentence with a clear front-loaded verb and a tidy list of the returned metadata. No filler or duplication.

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 one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description lists the substantive return fields, while the schema documents the only input. Minor omissions such as output formatting/response details prevent a 5, but nothing essential is missing for selecting or calling the 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 description coverage is 0%, but the only parameter ('network') has a self-documenting enum (mainnet/testnet). The description adds no explicit explanation of the parameter, though the word 'network' in the description and the enum together make it unambiguous.

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 resource ('Horizen network metadata') and enumerates concrete fields (chain ID, RPC URL, explorer URL, gas token, settlement layer). This specificity makes it distinguishable from siblings like get_bridge_info or get_token_info even without an explicit comparison.

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 implies the tool is appropriate whenever an agent needs Horizen chain-level metadata, listing the exact fields available. It does not, however, state when to prefer this over sibling tools or give any exclusions, so guidance is only implicit.

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