ramzinex_get_networks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is public and no auth is needed, which is helpful for safe usage. However, it does not mention potential rate limits, data freshness, or any other behavioral traits beyond the basic GET request. The return behavior is partially implied by the parameter descriptions but not explicitly stated.

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: English purpose, Persian translation, API mapping, and an argument list. Each sentence is informative and contributes value. It is slightly longer than necessary but remains efficient. The front-loading of the main purpose is 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 that an output schema exists (though not shown), the description need not detail return values. It adequately covers the tool's purpose, parameters, authentication status, and API mapping. However, it lacks mention of potential pagination or response structure, but this is acceptable since the output schema can provide that. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for selection and invocation.

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 0% description coverage, yet the description provides detailed explanations for all four parameters: currency_id (restrict to one currency), withdraw (filter by withdrawal support), deposit (filter by deposit support), and instance (configured instance URL). This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions and adds significant value.

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 it lists deposit/withdraw networks with optional filtering. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ramzinex_get_currencies (currencies) and ramzinex_get_pairs (trading pairs) by specifying 'networks'. The mapping to the API endpoint and Persian purpose add further clarity.

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 explains the filtering parameters and notes that the tool is public with no authentication required. While it does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives, the context is clear given the tool name and sibling tools. No exclusive usage guidance is provided, but the information is sufficient for an agent to decide.

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