xflows_get_supported_chains

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Get all chains' implies a read-only list operation, but it does not disclose return format, potential empty results, or any side effects. This is adequate but minimal for a zero-parameter getter.

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, front-loaded sentence. However, the parenthetical '(section 3.1)' adds little value and could confuse users without the referenced document, keeping it from a perfect score.

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?

The tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema. The description conveys the core function, but because there is no output schema, it should ideally hint at the return shape (e.g., list of chain IDs/names). This omission leaves some ambiguity.

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 the schema coverage is 100%. Per the rubric, the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get all chains supported by XFlows'. The verb 'Get' and resource 'chains supported by XFlows' are specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like xflows_get_supported_tokens.

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 implies usage for retrieving supported chains, but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not mention that xflows_get_supported_tokens should be used for token queries, leaving differentiation to the agent.

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