get_supported_networks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action clearly but does not disclose potential caveats such as data freshness, pagination, or rate limits. The verb 'Get' implies a non-destructive read, which is sufficient for a tool of this simplicity.

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 that is front-loaded and minimal. Every word contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose, with no redundancy or 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?

Given the tool's low complexity, zero parameters, and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It could optionally mention the return format or example networks, but for a simple lookup, the provided detail is adequate.

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, and the schema description coverage is 100% vacuously. Per baseline, when there are no parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate since there is nothing to add beyond what the schema already shows.

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 networks' clearly states the verb (Get) and resource (networks). It is specific enough for most uses, though it does not distinguish itself from similar sibling tools like rubic_get_supported_chains or x402_get_supported_networks.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of which networks are included or whether this list is global or context-specific. The tool's simplicity implies usage, but no explicit context or exclusions are offered.

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