get_blockchain_service

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves details and RPC methods, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps, though it's not misleading.

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 that front-loads the core purpose ('Get details about a specific blockchain service') and includes key additional info ('including supported RPC methods'). There's no wasted wording, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on output format, error handling, or behavioral traits. Without annotations or an output schema, more context on what 'details' include would improve completeness, but it's not entirely inadequate.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters (blockchain name and network type). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of blockchain services or details on RPC methods. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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's purpose: 'Get details about a specific blockchain service including supported RPC methods.' It specifies the verb ('Get details') and resource ('blockchain service'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_blockchain_services' (which lists services) or 'get_endpoint_details' (which focuses on endpoints). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_supported_methods' (which might overlap in functionality), keeping it from 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. It doesn't mention when to choose it over 'list_blockchain_services' (for listing services) or 'get_supported_methods' (which might retrieve similar RPC method info). There's no context on prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.

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