list_metrics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by specifying the exact return structure (id, name, description, category, unit, endpoint, access tier), which implies a read-only catalog operation. It does not mention pagination or rate limits, but for a simple list tool this is 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?

Two compact sentences convey the purpose and output structure without waste. The description is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every sentence adds value.

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 no-parameter list tool, the description completely specifies the output fields and scope. Since there is no output schema, the explicit enumeration of return fields compensates fully, making the tool's behavior clear and complete.

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 already covers the empty parameter list. The description correctly omits unnecessary parameter details, matching the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all available on-chain metrics'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that retrieve specific metric data. It also enumerates the returned fields (id, name, description, category, unit, endpoint, access tier), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's role.

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 context is clear: this tool is for enumerating all metrics. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives like search_metrics or get_metric for targeted lookups, which would provide stronger usage guidance.

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