get_metrics_map

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'index-based' but does not clarify what that means for the output, any ordering guarantees, or whether the mapping is static for a given contract. No side effects or quirks are disclosed.

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, compact sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, achieving maximum clarity per word.

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 many sibling tools and no annotations or output schema, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain what the mapping represents, how index-based works, or how this tool fits into the broader workflow. The low complexity of the tool is matched by minimal context, but the lack of any usage hints leaves the description incomplete.

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 schema has zero description coverage for its three parameters (chain, rpcUrl, contractAddress), and the description does not mention any of them. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving the agent without hints about how parameters affect the returned mapping.

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 returns a mapping from metric names to IDs, using the verb 'Get' and the resource 'mapping name -> id'. It is specific enough to differentiate from tools like get_metrics_count or has_metric, though it overlaps with ids_for_names without distinguishing itself from that sibling.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ids_for_names or list_metrics. The description only states what it does, not the context in which it should be preferred.

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