get_network_metadata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It discloses that the tool returns metadata fields (explorers, native currency, features) and implies a read-only operation via 'Get'. However, it does not describe error handling, rate limits, or the full scope of 'comprehensive', leaving some ambiguity.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. It is concise and avoids redundancy, though 'comprehensive' adds little semantic value.

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 description provides some examples of returned metadata but no output schema exists, so the agent must infer what 'comprehensive' includes. It doesn't mention supported networks or chain ID resolution, which are covered only in the schema. For a simple tool this may be adequate, but it could be more specific about return structure.

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 fully documents the single 'network' parameter, including examples and default behavior. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter details, so it relies on the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 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 clearly states the tool retrieves comprehensive metadata about a network, specifically mentioning explorers, native currency, and features. It uses the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as network metadata, distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on specific aspects like health or supported networks. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the similarly named 'get_chain_info' sibling.

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 like get_chain_info or get_supported_networks. The description simply states what it does without providing context for selection or exclusions.

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