get_supported_methods

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 information ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or response format. For a tool with no annotations, 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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 complexity (simple read operation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavior, usage context, and output, which are important for a tool in a server with many siblings. It's complete enough for a basic tool 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('blockchain' and 'network'). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 all supported RPC methods for a specific blockchain service.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('supported RPC methods') with context ('for a specific blockchain service'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_endpoint_details' or 'list_endpoints' that might provide related information.

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 prerequisites, timing, or how it differs from sibling tools such as 'list_endpoints' or 'get_endpoint_details,' which could overlap in functionality. Usage is implied by the purpose but not explicitly stated.

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