cosmos_get_supported_chains

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it only states the core action and does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it returns chain names vs. IDs, or any caching/rate-limit behavior. The description adds nothing beyond what the tool name already implies.

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, short sentence that is entirely on-topic and front-loaded. It contains no filler, redundant information, or repetition of the tool name. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 should explain what the return value will be. It states 'list of supported Cosmos SDK chains', which gives a basic idea, but it does not specify the format (e.g., chain IDs, names, objects, array of strings) or whether it includes testnets/mainnets. For such a simple tool with no parameters, this is adequate but not fully complete.

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 zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The schema is devoid of properties, and the description correctly implies that no input is needed. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not introduce any confusion.

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 'Get list of supported Cosmos SDK chains' uses a specific verb (Get) and clearly identifies the resource (list of supported chains) and scope (Cosmos SDK). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cosmos_get_balance and cosmos_get_delegations by focusing on chain support rather than account data or transactions.

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 such as get_supported_networks or rubic_get_supported_chains. It does not state any exclusions, prerequisites, or typical scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and description.

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