sodax_get_supported_chains

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no new behavioral traits beyond the annotations. It does not disclose any potential side effects or response characteristics that aren't already implied by the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous information. Every word serves a purpose, clearly stating the action and scope. Ideal conciseness.

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 tool's low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema, simple list operation), the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns (list of supported chains) and requires no further context for proper 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with a well-documented optional 'format' parameter. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or contexts for when to use each format. Baseline score of 3 applies because schema covers the parameter fully.

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?

Description clearly states it lists all blockchain networks supported by SODAX for cross-chain swaps and DeFi operations, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like sodax_get_swap_tokens or sodax_get_all_chains_configs by focusing on supported chains, not tokens or configs.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sodax_get_all_chains_configs or sodax_get_swap_tokens. However, the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer its use for getting a list of supported chains. Missing when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria keep it at a minimum viable level.

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