rubic_get_supported_chains

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only action via 'Get' but does not mention whether authentication is required, what the return list contains (chain names, IDs, both), or how testnets are handled by default. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the one-line purpose.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It efficiently delivers the core purpose, making it an exemplary model of conciseness.

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 simple list tool with one optional parameter that is fully covered by the schema, the one-line description is adequate and accurate. It omits details like response format or default testnet inclusion, but the low complexity and schema coverage make these minor rather than critical gaps.

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 single parameter includeTestnets is fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to repeat it. Since the schema already explains the parameter's meaning, the baseline 3 is appropriate even though the description itself offers no parameter-specific 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 the specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource—'all blockchains supported by Rubic for cross-chain bridging'—so it clearly states the tool's function. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_supported_networks' or 'cosmos_get_supported_chains', so it lacks a comparative distinction.

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, nor does it mention any prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions. For example, it doesn't say 'Use this to check available chains before requesting a bridge quote.' Without this, the agent receives no decision support beyond the obvious.

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