get_capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds genuine context beyond that: no credentials/account key are required, and the tool is limited to capability facts and docs rather than any notification or transfer action.

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?

Two dense sentences with little padding, but the ordering is inverted for an agent: the product-scope sentence ('confirmed transfer notifications via webhook or Telegram') leads while the actual tool action ('Return official capability facts and documentation') is buried at the end of the final sentence.

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 zero-parameter, read-only discovery tool with no output schema, the description states what is returned (official capability facts and documentation) and what is out of scope, which is sufficient to invoke it. Return format details are omitted, but with no output schema that gap is minor.

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 input parameters, which sets the baseline at 4. The description correctly implies a parameter-free discovery call with 'no account key needed' and adds no misleading parameter-like expectations.

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 final clause 'Return official capability facts and documentation' gives a concrete verb+resource, and the scope list ('no balance thresholds, arbitrary tokens, other chains or funds transfer') implicitly separates it from the watch/event siblings. However, the lead sentence describes the product's notification feature rather than the tool's action, which briefly muddles what the tool returns.

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 negative scope (no balance thresholds, arbitrary tokens, other chains, funds transfer) tells an agent when this tool is not the answer, and 'no account key needed' hints at prerequisites. It never states the positive trigger (e.g. 'call this to discover supported chains/notification methods') nor names an alternative sibling to use instead.

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