call_rpc_method

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 states the action ('Call a JSON-RPC method') but doesn't describe key traits: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only or mutating operation (though RPC methods can include writes), potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a tool with no annotations and potential write capabilities, this lack of detail is a significant 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It directly states 'Call a JSON-RPC method on a specific blockchain service,' which is clear and to the point. There's no redundancy or fluff, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 complexity of calling RPC methods (which can involve reads or writes), the lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like safety, response format, or error cases, and it omits usage guidelines relative to many siblings. For a tool with 4 parameters and potential mutation risks, more context is needed to ensure safe and effective use by an agent.

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 description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. The schema has 100% description coverage, with clear docs for each parameter (e.g., 'blockchain' as the name, 'method' as the RPC method name). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate with additional context like example usage or parameter interactions.

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 purpose: 'Call a JSON-RPC method on a specific blockchain service.' It specifies the verb ('Call') and resource ('JSON-RPC method'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'call_contract_view' or 'call_endpoint' by focusing on raw RPC calls rather than contract interactions or generic endpoints. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all similar tools, such as 'query_blockchain', which might also involve RPC-like queries.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer this over siblings like 'call_contract_view' for contract reads, 'query_blockchain' for broader queries, or other blockchain-specific tools (e.g., 'get_block_details'). There's no context on prerequisites, such as needing a valid blockchain service, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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