rpc_proxy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses latency (~6 ms), cost ($0.001 USDC per call), and the node provider (Valorem's Reth L1 node), which is useful context. However, it does not disclose whether the proxy is read-only or can broadcast state-changing methods (e.g., eth_sendRawTransaction), nor error handling, rate limits, or authentication. This is a moderate gap for a generic proxy.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core function, then adds latency and cost. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff. It is appropriately concise for a tool with a well-defined schema.

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?

Given that this is a generic JSON-RPC proxy and the schema fully documents parameters, the description is relatively complete. It covers what the tool does, performance characteristics, and pricing. However, the lack of any output schema or mention of the standard JSON-RPC response format leaves a small gap. Also, the absence of annotations means the description must fully disclose safety/behavioral aspects, which it only partially does (e.g., no explicit statement about write support). Still, for a proxy, the description is strong.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a clear description. The tool description adds method examples (eth_blockNumber, eth_call) and notes 'Pass [] for methods that take no params', which slightly complements the schema. However, the description does not add novel parameter context beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states a specific action: 'Proxies a JSON-RPC call through Valorem's premium Reth L1 node'. It also specifies the scope ('Supports any standard Ethereum JSON-RPC method'), which distinguishes it from the sibling data-lookup tools (catalog, builder_stats, etc.). The verb 'proxies' + resource 'JSON-RPC call' is precise.

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 clear context for use: it is a generic proxy for any standard JSON-RPC method, and the cost implies it is a paid service. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives. Given the sibling list, this tool is clearly the only raw RPC proxy, but explicit exclusionary guidance is absent.

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