thorchain_get_network_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions it returns 'network information including mimir values', but doesn't state whether this is a read-only operation, whether it can fail (e.g., if the THORChain API is down), whether it requires any API key or permissions, or what the response structure looks like. The word 'Get' implies a read, but the description doesn't add safety or edge-case context. For a tool with zero annotations, this is a notable gap.

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 one short sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the primary verb and resource and includes the mimir detail in a compact clause. 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 0-parameter read-only-looking tool, the description is moderately complete: it tells the agent the tool returns network info including mimir values. However, without annotations, it doesn't clarify safety or failure modes, and there's no output schema to document return structure. It's adequate but leaves the agent to infer some details (e.g., what 'network information' includes beyond mimir).

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 0 parameters, so there are no parameters to document. The description's mention of 'mimir values' adds a small semantic hint about the content of the response, which is the only thing the description could add here. A score of 4 is appropriate for a 0-parameter tool where no param docs are needed.

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 THORChain network information including mimir values' uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource (THORChain network information) and a key detail (mimir values). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like thorchain_get_pool_info (pools) and thorchain_get_swap_quote (quotes), though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives. A 4 is appropriate because the purpose is clear even without explicit sibling differentiation.

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 implies usage context: it's for fetching network-wide THORChain status, not for chain-specific or user-specific data. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like near_get_network_info or bitcoin_get_network_info. The context is clear only because of the THORChain prefix in the tool name. With no exclusions or alternatives named, this is a minimum-viable score of 3.

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