Get deployments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what data is returned but does not explicitly indicate that the operation is read-only, has no side effects, requires any specific authentication, or how it handles errors. The lack of any safety or side-effect information is a notable gap.

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 a single, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the key return items and the environment scope. There is no filler or redundancy; every word contributes to the meaning.

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 no-parameter get tool, the description is fairly complete, but it lacks an output schema and does not describe the return format, potential error conditions, or how the environment is determined. An agent might not know exactly what keys or types to expect in the response.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. The description adds relevant context about the 'configured environment' (testnet/mainnet), which clarifies the scope of the tool beyond the schema, though it does not add parameter-specific detail because none exist.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and clearly enumerates the exact data items (contract addresses, subgraph URLs, chain ID, ABI package versions), and scopes them to a configured environment (testnet/mainnet). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_market_rules or get_orderbook, which cover different domains.

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 when to use it (when deployment information is needed) and adds context about the environment, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of related tools or exclusions, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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