list_supported_chains

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds modest value by framing the result as the set of chains 'this server can investigate,' clarifying the list's purpose. It does not contradict annotations.

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 zero filler. Every word earns its place, and the verb 'List' leads immediately.

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 listing tool with an output schema (covering return values) and annotations covering safety behavior, the description is nearly complete. The only minor gap is that it doesn't note the open-world nature of the result set, but openWorldHint already communicates that via annotations.

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 schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter detail, and none is needed since there is nothing to configure.

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 and resource: 'List the chains this server can investigate.' The phrase 'this server can investigate' also conveys scope, distinguishing it naturally from the sibling analysis tools (score_risk, inspect_contract, trace_funds), which act on chains rather than enumerating them.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative routing, but the usage context is clearly implied: since the sibling tools investigate chains, an agent can infer this tool should be queried first to discover which chains are eligible for investigation. Adequate for a zero-parameter capability-discovery tool, though it never states 'call this before chain-specific tools.'

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