goplus_supported_chains

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 tool returns a list of supported chains but gives no details on response format, pagination, or whether the list is exhaustive. The behavior is not misleading but is minimally 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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a simple zero-parameter tool.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate but not entirely complete. It does not describe the expected return structure or clarify what 'supported' means, which could be ambiguous. However, for a basic list endpoint, this may be sufficient.

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 does not need to explain parameter semantics since none exist. It correctly omits any parameter-related details.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('list of blockchain networks supported by GoPlus security API'), clearly identifying the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from generic siblings like 'get_supported_networks' by naming 'GoPlus security API', though it does not explicitly contrast with those alternatives.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'get_supported_networks', 'defi_get_chains', and 'dex_get_networks', the description fails to indicate which scenarios call for this specific GoPlus-focused tool.

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