getNetworks

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description's 'list' action aligns with read-only behavior and adds that output includes current 24h volume and indexing stats, hinting at dynamic but safe data. This adds value beyond annotations without 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with a clear directive and purpose. Every word serves a purpose: the first sentence states what the tool does, the second provides usage guidance. No wasted text.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter, comprehensive annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it returns, its role as a starting point, and ordering relative to siblings. It is fully adequate given the complexity.

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 coverage is 100% with a detailed description for the 'rationale' parameter. The tool description does not add any further meaning about the parameter, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 all supported blockchain networks with current 24h volume and indexing stats. It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('supported blockchain networks'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by suggesting a specific order of calls ('START HERE'). This provides unambiguous purpose and differentiation.

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 to call getCapabilities first to see workflows and synonyms, providing clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The 'START HERE' directive further clarifies its role as an entry point.

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