Get Supported Networks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'all networks' scope and the exact return fields, which is useful but not a major relational disclosure beyond the annotations. No contradiction exists.

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 well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a compact 'Use this when' list, an explicit return shape, and concrete example prompts. Every section earns its place, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 lookup tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it defines the purpose, usage triggers, return structure, and field meanings. Combined with the rich annotations, nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the schema already fully defines the input. Per the rubric, a zero-param tool gets a baseline of 4; the description appropriately notes when to call it without needing to explain any parameter semantics.

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: 'Returns all EVM blockchain networks supported by Monei, including chain IDs, native tokens, and block explorer URLs.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like monei_get_banks or monei_get_wallet, which serve different data resources.

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 provides explicit 'Use this when' scenarios, including looking up chain IDs and helping users choose a network. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool overlaps with this network-listing capability, so the context is clear enough.

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