get_chains

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the output content (chain attributes) but doesn't mention behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'List'), potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or response format. The description adds value by specifying what data is returned but lacks operational context.

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, dense sentence that efficiently packs all necessary information: action, resource, scope, and specific output attributes. There's no wasted wording, and it's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete for a read-only listing operation. It specifies what data is returned, but lacks details on format (e.g., structured list vs. raw), pagination, or error handling. For a tool with no structured output schema, more detail on return values would be beneficial.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though empty). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, so it appropriately focuses on output semantics. It adds meaning by detailing what information is returned (chain IDs, native tokens, etc.), which is valuable since there's no output schema 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 specific verb ('List') and resource ('all supported chains') with detailed scope ('EVM + Solana') and specific attributes ('chain IDs, native tokens, stablecoins, and RPC configuration status'). It effectively distinguishes itself from siblings like get_balance or get_token_info by focusing on chain metadata rather than wallet/token data.

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 implies usage context through the listed attributes (e.g., chain IDs for network selection, RPC status for connectivity checks), suggesting it should be used when needing chain metadata for configuration or reference. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, though the distinction is clear from the resource focus.

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