get_available_networks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get list of' implies a read-only, side-effect-free enumeration, which is good, but it says nothing about whether the list is static or configured, or how entries are identified (names vs. IDs) for use in sibling tools. For a simple zero-param listing tool this is a moderate rather than severe 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy, appropriately sized for a trivial listing tool. It is efficient but offers no additional qualifying detail.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only source of truth, and it leaves the return shape (what fields each network entry has, what identifier other tools expect) unspecified. Adequate for an agent to decide to call it, but incomplete for using the result correctly downstream.

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 takes zero parameters and the input schema is an empty object, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get list of all supported blockchain networks'), which is unambiguous about what the tool returns. It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_network_pools by making clear this is the network inventory, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is a discovery step to find valid network identifiers before calling get_network_pools or get_token_liquidity. The description never says when to call it or that its output feeds other tools, so the routing logic is left to inference.

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