sodax_get_all_chains_configs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description need not cover safety. It adds some behavioral context by specifying the returned data includes contract addresses, RPCs, and token configs, but it does not describe performance implications or result size.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and outcome with no redundant information. Every phrase adds value.

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 low complexity (1 optional parameter, no nested objects) and adequate annotations, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and output content. It lacks a full list of return fields but provides key examples, which is reasonable without an output schema.

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 covers the sole parameter 'format' with enum and default (100% coverage). The description does not add any further meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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 action 'Get detailed configuration' and the resource 'all spoke chains', listing specific content like contract addresses, RPCs, and token configs. This distinctly identifies the tool's purpose among many sibling tools that deal with specific chains or assets.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sodax_get_supported_chains or sodax_get_hub_assets. The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent without decision support.

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