spraay_rpc_call

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

Annotations provide minimal behavioral info (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true). Description adds cost details and provider names but does not disclose that the call may be mutating depending on the method (e.g., eth_sendRawTransaction). No contradiction with annotations. Some behavioral context is added, but more could be said about side effects or authorization.

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?

Extremely concise: one sentence with a clear list of supported chains and cost. No wasted words.

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?

Output schema exists (not shown), so return values are documented. Description covers tool purpose, supported chains, providers, and cost. It lacks info on rate limits or auth, but given complexity and presence of output schema, it is reasonably complete.

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?

Input schema covers all 3 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds explicit chain examples and cost, which is helpful but not essential since schema already describes chain with examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states it makes a premium multi-chain JSON-RPC call, explicitly listing supported chains (Base, Ethereum, Arbitrum, etc.) and providers (Alchemy/Helius). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like spraay_rpc_chains (which lists available chains) and contract-specific tools.

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?

Description indicates this is a paid (premium) RPC call costing $0.001 USDC, implying it should be used when high-quality, multi-chain RPC access is needed. It does not explicitly exclude use cases or mention alternatives (e.g., free RPC tools like spraay_free_*), but context is clear enough.

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