dex_get_networks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It does disclose the core behavior (returning supported networks) and provides example outputs, but it does not mention whether the call is read-only, if any prerequisites exist, or how the list is ordered/paginated. This is adequate for a simple discovery call but not richly transparent.

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, tight sentence that front-loads the key directive ('REQUIRED FIRST STEP') and provides an illustrative example. Every word contributes to understanding when and why to call the tool, with no filler.

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 zero-parameter, simple network-list tool, the description covers what the tool does, why it's needed, and what to expect. It could go further by mentioning that the returned IDs are used in subsequent DEX tool parameters, but the examples already imply this. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the clear examples.

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 the baseline is 4. The description adds value by giving example return values ('ethereum', 'solana', etc.), which helps agents understand the domain of expected network IDs. There are no input parameters to describe, so this score is appropriate.

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 it retrieves all supported blockchain networks specifically for DEX data, with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('all supported blockchain networks'). It also provides examples of network IDs, distinguishing it from generic network listing tools like get_supported_networks or geckoterminal_get_networks by scoping to DEX use.

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 explicitly marks this as 'REQUIRED FIRST STEP' and instructs 'Always call this first', providing clear when-to-use guidance. It doesn't name alternatives or exclusions, but the DEX-specific context and directive are sufficient for most agents to know when to invoke it.

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