chainpay_get_supported_chains

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states this is a read operation ('Get all ...') and discloses the output includes fee rates and minimum amounts. It doesn't mention potential rate limits or pagination, but for a simple list tool with no parameters, this is adequate. A higher score would require more detail on edge cases or response format.

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: the first defines purpose and output, the second gives usage guidance. No unnecessary words. Front-loaded with the main action. Perfectly concise.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description provides essential information: what data is returned (chains, tokens, fees, minimum amounts) and when to use it (before creating orders). This is sufficient for an agent to understand and correctly invoke the tool. No gaps identified.

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 zero parameters and the input schema is empty. Schema coverage is 100% by definition. Description cannot add parameter semantics because there are none. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not detract from this.

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 gets all supported blockchain networks and tokens, including fee rates and minimum amounts. It uses a specific verb (Get) and identifies the resource (supported chains/tokens). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like chainpay_create_order which perform actions on the 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 explicitly advises 'Call this before creating orders to get valid chain/token values.' This provides clear guidance on when to use the tool and its role as a prerequisite for order creation. While it doesn't mention withdrawals, it covers the primary use case effectively.

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