Get Obyte Network Info

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the dual-network serving model, the mainnet default, config precedence details, and the actionable instruction to mention update_available to the user. No contradiction with 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?

Two dense paragraphs: the first front-loads the return contents and usage timing, the second covers parameter semantics and user-confirmation protocol. Each sentence earns its place; slightly long but packed with useful information rather than filler.

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 single-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is thorough: it lists the return contents, states when to call it, explains the network parameter, the default behavior, and a user-interaction rule. Minor gaps like response format examples or error behavior exist but are not critical given the tool's simplicity and annotation coverage.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description bears the full burden for the single network parameter. It compensates well by explaining the accepted values ('mainnet'/'testnet'), the default when omitted, and guidance to confirm the user's intent before calling. This adds real semantic value beyond the bare enum in the schema.

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 ('Returns') and resource ('effective MCP runtime configuration') followed by a concrete enumeration of the contents: default network, per-network hub URL, token registry, config precedence, limits, witnesses cache metadata, and update availability. The topic is clearly distinct from all sibling tools, which deal with balances, attestations, history, and other data queries, so no confusion is possible.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use before other calls when network selection matters.' It also instructs the agent to confirm the intended network with the user before calling when it wasn't explicit. It doesn't name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but no sibling tool competes for this purpose, so clear context is sufficient.

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