x402_list_supported_networks

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

With no annotations provided, the description must stand alone. It correctly implies a read-only operation via the verb 'List' and discloses the output contents (chain IDs, CAIP-2, explorer URLs), which is adequate for a simple list task. It does not mention pagination or caching, but those are not essential for this function.

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 entire description is a single, well-structured sentence that leads with the verb and packs the key output fields. No filler or redundant information.

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?

While the description captures the core function and output, it lacks guidance on how this tool relates to other x402 or network-listing tools like x402_networks or get_supported_networks. Without an output schema, it could also describe the return format more explicitly, but the listed fields help. Overall, it is slightly incomplete for a complex tool ecosystem.

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 accepts no parameters, so the description naturally doesn't need to add parameter details. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description adds clarity by explaining that the result covers all supported networks without requiring input.

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 clearly states the tool's function: listing supported networks for x402 payments, and specifies the exact data fields (chain IDs, CAIP-2 identifiers, explorer URLs). However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like x402_networks or get_supported_networks, so it falls short of fully distinguishing.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like x402_networks or get_supported_networks. The description only states the operation and output, offering no context for tool selection.

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