get_available_price_feeds

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It communicates a read-only listing operation but does not disclose response structure, pagination, or what 'available' entails. Basic behavior is clear but lacks detail about output or edge cases.

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 concise sentence, efficiently front-loaded with the action and object. No unnecessary words.

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 one-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose but leaves out details about return format and usage context. The tool is relatively simple, so a 3 is appropriate; it is sufficient but not rich.

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 input schema provides full coverage (100%) of the single network parameter, including examples and default. The description adds minimal value, only implicitly connecting the parameter to the network scope. It does not add new semantic detail beyond 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 tool lists Chainlink price feeds on a network, using the specific verb 'List' and identifying the resource ('Chainlink price feeds') and scope ('on a network'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_chainlink_price which retrieves a specific price, or check_price_feed_health which checks feed health.

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 implies the tool is for discovering available feeds on a given network but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives, such as get_chainlink_price for fetching a price. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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