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 of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what side effects exist. The description provides no behavioral detail beyond the bare action of 'getting'.

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 concise, front-loaded with the verb, and contains no filler or repetition. However, it is so terse that it sacrifices informative detail, making it less effective than a slightly longer description that clarifies the output or intended use.

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?

The tool is simple (1 parameter, no output schema) but the description still leaves significant gaps. It does not define what 'chain information' includes, what the return value looks like, or when this tool should be chosen over similar network-related tools. Given no output schema, the description should explain the returned data, but it does not.

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 already provides full coverage of the sole parameter with examples, accepted formats (name or chain ID), and a default value. The description's phrase 'for a specific network' adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema's parameter description already conveys.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Get chain information for a specific network'. It is specific enough to know it fetches data about a network, but it does not distinguish itself from closely related siblings like get_chain_id or get_network_metadata, and the term 'chain information' is vague about what fields are returned.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or how it differs from sibling tools such as get_network_metadata or get_chain_id. The description simply repeats the function's purpose without usage context.

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