get_chain_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the underlying data sources (getChain() and RPC getChainId()), which is minor implementation context, but says nothing about auth needs, caching, rate limits, or error behavior. As a side-effect-free read of static chain metadata the risk is low, making this borderline adequate.

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?

Two tight, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The trailing implementation detail ('Uses getChain() and RPC getChainId()') is of marginal value to an agent selecting the tool, but it does not bloat the description.

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?

With no output schema, the description helpfully enumerates the returned fields (chainId, chain name, native currency), which compensates for the missing return spec. For a simple, zero-required-param read tool this is largely complete, though error/fallback behavior is unstated.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'network' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its accepted values and default. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline 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 uses a clear verb+resource ('Get chain info for the network') and enumerates the returned fields (chainId, chain name, native currency). This is specific enough to distinguish it from data-fetching siblings like get_block_number or get_kaia_price, though it never explicitly names when it differs from them.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, no exclusions. Usage is only inferred from the tool name and returned fields.

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