get_supported_networks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Get list' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify what 'supported networks' means (e.g., blockchain networks, API-supported networks), whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or what format the list returns. This leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters.

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 parameterless read operation with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It states what the tool does but lacks context about what 'supported networks' entails, return format, or behavioral constraints. Given the simplicity (0 params, no annotations), it's functional but could be more informative.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema is fully described). The description doesn't need to add parameter information, so it meets the baseline expectation for parameterless tools. No additional semantic value is required or provided.

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 'Get list of supported networks' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('supported networks'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'get_chain_info' which might provide similar network-related information, preventing a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_chain_info' that might overlap, there's no indication of when this specific tool is appropriate or what distinguishes it from other network-related tools.

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