getPlatforms

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and clearly states read-only, limit caps results, and no API key required. This fully discloses behavioral traits for a safe, bounded operation. There is no contradiction.

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 concise, using three sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core purpose and provides essential context immediately.

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?

The tool has one parameter, no required fields, and no output schema. The description explains purpose, usage, and safety (read-only, no API key). However, it does not describe the return format or structure of the response, which would be helpful for an agent. Nevertheless, for a simple list tool with rich sibling context, it is nearly complete.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema for the limit parameter—it only restates default and max values present in schema. No additional context about how the limit affects results or usage is provided.

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 lists smart-contract platforms (blockchains) indexed by CoinPaprika, with examples (ethereum, bnb, polygon). It distinguishes from siblings like getContracts by noting the platform id is used before calling getContracts, and from other list tools by its specific resource.

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 provides use cases: 'Use for which chains are supported for contract lookups, list contract platforms, or to pick a platform id before calling getContracts.' It also mentions read-only status, limit caps, and that no API key is required, offering clear guidance on when and how to use.

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