listChainlinkFeeds

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clearly states the operation is a read-only listing with no side effects, but it does not describe the return format, size, or any edge cases. This is adequate for a simple list tool but lacks deeper behavioral disclosure beyond what the description states.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no filler or redundant information. Perfectly concise.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema list tool, the description is fully sufficient. It states exactly what is listed and the scope ('curated registry'), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 and schema coverage is 100% with no properties. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is granted for zero-parameter tools. The description adds no parameter details, but none 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 uses the specific verb 'Lists' and clearly identifies the resource as 'all supported chains and Chainlink pairs' within 'this server's curated registry'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like getChainlinkPrice (which fetches prices) and listSupportedChains (which lists only chains).

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 clear context that this is a discovery tool for available chains and Chainlink pairs, implying use before price queries. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the scope is obvious given the sibling tools. A 4 is appropriate for clear context without explicit exclusions.

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