debank_get_chains

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

Without annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It accurately describes a read operation that retrieves chain info, with optional filtering. It does not mention side effects or auth requirements, but for a simple read tool, this is 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?

The description is well-structured with Args, Returns, and Examples sections, making it easy to scan. It is somewhat verbose but every sentence adds value. The examples are helpful. Could be slightly more concise, but overall good.

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 low complexity (one optional parameter, no annotations, but an output schema exists), the description is nearly complete. It covers the parameter, return structure, and examples. Missing details like error handling are minor for this context.

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 0% description coverage, but the description compensates excellently by explaining the parameter's behavior (optional, single vs all), providing valid examples, and clarifying the return structure. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw 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 tool retrieves blockchain network information from DeBank, with a specific verb and resource. It differentiates well from sibling tools that focus on accounts, gas prices, pools, etc., making the distinct purpose evident.

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 clear context on when to use the optional chain_id parameter (to get a specific chain vs all chains). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it with alternatives, though the sibling list implies differentiation.

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