listSupportedChains

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the tool returns a list of blockchain networks, which implies a read-only operation, but does not describe details like sorting, filtering, or whether the list is exhaustive. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but minimal.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 (0 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete enough for an agent to understand what the tool does. It could mention return format or item details, but for a basic chain-listing tool, the provided context is sufficient.

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 zero parameters, and the schema confirms this with 100% coverage. According to the rubric, 0 params gets a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter details because 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 clearly states the action ('Lists'), the resource ('blockchain networks with curated Chainlink feed coverage'), and the scope ('in this server'). This directly distinguishes it from siblings like listChainlinkFeeds (which lists feeds) and Pyth-related tools, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 sufficient context for when to use this tool: when you need to know which blockchain networks have Chainlink feed coverage available. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'curated Chainlink feed coverage' wording naturally separates it from Pyth alternatives. The intended use is implied clearly.

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