Blockchain MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe how it behaves - no information about response format, pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether it's a read-only operation. 'List' implies reading, but this isn't explicitly confirmed.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool with no parameters and gets straight to the point.

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 listing tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides the basic purpose but lacks important context. Without annotations or output schema, the description should ideally mention what information is returned (chain IDs, names, RPC URLs, etc.) and that this is a read-only operation.

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 with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't mention parameters since none exist, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose rather than unnecessary details.

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 verb 'list' and the resource 'all supported EVM-compatible chains and their configurations', making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't distinguish from siblings (like 'get-balance' or 'send-transaction'), but those are fundamentally different operations, so differentiation isn't critical here.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While siblings like 'get-balance' or 'send-transaction' serve different purposes, there's no mention of when this listing operation is appropriate or what context it serves within the broader toolset.

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