scan_token_networks

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions that the tool scans across networks and has a 'fromChain' parameter that is auto-detected if omitted, which is useful. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., network calls, rate limits) or what happens if the token is not found. No contradiction with annotations since none exist.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core purpose (what it does) is in the first sentence, and the usage context (when to use) is in the second. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient and readable.

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 moderate complexity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the purpose, usage timing, and notes auto-detection. However, it lacks details on output structure or edge cases (e.g., token not found), but these are not critical given the tool's simplicity. The availability of a sibling for route resolution adds context.

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?

Although the schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, the description adds context beyond the schema: it clarifies that 'token' is a contract address (already in schema) but also implies the tool works across all supported networks, which enriches the meaning of 'token' and the scan behavior. For 'fromChain', it explains why it's optional (auto-detected). This adds value to the schema.

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 ('find every supported network the token exists on and its OFT bridge contract on each') with a specific resource (token contract address), and it distinguishes itself from siblings by its scope (discovery, not route resolution). The mention of 'before resolving a specific route' helps differentiate from find_bridge_route.

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 a clear usage context: 'Useful to discover where a token can be bridged from and to before resolving a specific route.' This indicates when to use this tool relative to route resolution, implying the alternative (find_bridge_route) for after discovery. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name the siblings directly.

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