spraay_free_chain_status

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true; the description adds behavioral details like caching ('cached 30s') and scope ('7 EVM chains'), which are not covered by annotations. No contradictions.

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 concise, using two sentences to convey purpose, scope, caching, cost, and parameter usage. Front-loaded with the core function. Could be more structured but is efficient.

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 tool's simplicity (1 parameter, output schema exists, annotations present), the description covers essential aspects: purpose, scope, caching, and parameter format. Missing specific chain names, but overall adequate.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% (the single 'params' parameter has a description). The description reiterates the parameter format but does not explain what query keys/values are valid, adding minimal meaning beyond the schema.

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 returns 'Block height & liveness' for '7 EVM chains', specifying the core purpose and scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling free tools like spraay_free_gas or spraay_free_nonce by focusing on chain status.

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 for checking chain status but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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