market_get_blockchains

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates a read-only list operation but does not describe the return format, sorting, or whether the list is exhaustive. This is minimally adequate but lacks helpful extra context.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence states exactly what the tool does with no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, simple list tool, the description covers the key facts: resource (blockchains) and source (CoinStats). It does not detail the output structure, but the absence of an output schema makes some additional description helpful, though not critical.

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 is empty. The description does not need to explain parameter behavior, and the no-parameter situation meets the baseline of 4. It correctly adds no irrelevant parameter 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 a list') and resource ('blockchains supported by CoinStats'), clearly identifying the tool's purpose. It also implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_supported_networks or market_get_exchanges by naming CoinStats as the source of the list.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_supported_networks or market_get_exchanges. There are no explicit use cases, exclusions, or context hints to help an agent choose it over sibling tools.

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