1s_chain_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description solely handles transparency. It mentions the output is hex-encoded, but does not disclose error handling, side effects, or limitations. For a simple read-only query, it is minimally adequate.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The primary action is stated first, followed by usage guidance. Excellent efficiency.

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 tool with low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers purpose, usage context, and a direct alternative. Minor omission: could explicitly state return type as a string, but not critical.

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 description coverage is 100% with the 'network' parameter already described. The description adds 'hex-encoded value' which is not parameter-specific. No additional parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 action ('Get'), the resource ('EIP-155 chain ID'), and the output format ('hex-encoded value'). It distinguishes from sibling '1s_network_info' which provides additional data.

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 gives a specific use case ('verify the network before signing transactions') and explicitly names the alternative '1s_network_info' for more comprehensive data. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' but provides clear context.

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