agentscoin_network_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond them by spelling out the returned configuration fields and the downstream purpose (wallet network setup), which an agent needs since no output schema exists.

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 short sentences, zero filler: the first states what is returned, the second states the use case. Purpose is front-loaded and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 zero-parameter, read-only informational tool with no output schema, the description supplies both the field list and the intended use, which is sufficient to invoke it correctly. Only minor gap is that it does not say the call is free/idempotent or how the values should be formatted into a wallet.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument call by not referencing any inputs.

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?

Specific verb (Get) plus resource (AgentsCoin network parameters) with an enumerated payload (chainId, RPC, symbol, explorer). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like agentscoin_gas or agentscoin_token_info, though it does not name or contrast against any of them explicitly.

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?

Gives a concrete usage context: "Use to add the network to MetaMask or any EVM wallet." That tells the agent when this tool is the right pick, but there is no exclusion guidance or mention of when another sibling (e.g. agentscoin_gas) would be preferred.

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