get_chain_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, establishing the safety profile. The description adds value by enumerating the exact return fields, giving the agent a clear expectation of the output without needing an output schema. It does not discuss error conditions or rate limits, but for a simple getter this is sufficient.

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 sentence that front-loads the action verb and lists all four return items in a compact list. There is no filler, and every phrase adds information.

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 zero parameters, clear annotations, and a concise description listing all output fields, the tool is fully specified for the agent. The lack of an output schema is compensated by the description's enumeration of the returned data. Sibling tools suggest a read-only context, and this tool fits that pattern without needing additional caveats.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it correctly lists the data items returned rather than any input details.

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 the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as Pharos chain info, listing four concrete data items (chain ID, client version, latest block, configured RPC endpoint). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_block_number or get_transaction, which target different 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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings such as get_block_number or eth_call. However, the purpose is self-explanatory and implies usage when chain-level metadata is needed, so it provides minimal contextual guidance.

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