listSupportedNetworks

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 accurately identifies the tool as a read-only listing operation with no side effects. While it does not detail response format or pagination, the simplicity of the tool (no parameters) makes this acceptable.

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, dense sentence that immediately conveys the action and scope. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail. It is optimally concise for the tool's simplicity.

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 the tool's zero parameters, no output schema, and clear purpose, the description provides all necessary context. It fully informs the agent of what the tool does and its scope. No additional information is needed for successful invocation.

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 no properties with 100% description coverage (since there are none). The description adds value by specifying the tool's purpose and scope (EVM and Solana chains), which the schema alone does not convey. With zero parameters, the baseline is 4.

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 lists all blockchain networks supported by Alchemy, specifying inclusion of EVM and Solana chains. This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools which focus on specific chain operations or data retrieval.

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 implicitly indicates when to use this tool: when you need a list of supported networks. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are provided, but given the context of sibling tools, it is clear this is the only network listing tool, making usage obvious.

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