useChainRegistry

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

No annotations are present, so the description must stand alone. It discloses that the tool provides examples and usage patterns, implying a read-only informational resource, but does not detail return format, limitations, or prerequisites beyond the schema's parameter description.

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 sentence, which is efficient. However, it repeats the idea of providing guidance twice ('provides comprehensive examples and usage patterns' and 'call this tool for any...guidance'), which could be more tightly worded.

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 guidance tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose but omits what the returned examples or patterns look like. It also does not explain how the majorVersion parameter influences the output, relying entirely on the schema for that.

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 input schema already fully describes the only parameter (majorVersion) with enum values and guidance on v2 being default. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 identifies the tool as providing Chain Registry examples and usage patterns, distinguishing it from siblings which focus on Starship and Interchain configuration. However, it lacks a precise verb like 'retrieve' or 'list' and is broad with 'any guidance', making it slightly less specific than ideal.

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?

Explicitly instructs to call for any Chain Registry implementation guidance, giving a clear usage context. It does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, but the provided context is sufficient.

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