Fetch complete details for any supported blockchain network: chain ID, category, block time, native currency, RPC endpoint URL templates, and documentation links.
Full details for one chain SwiftNodes serves: chain ID, category, block time, native currency, HTTP/WebSocket/archive endpoint URL templates, and docs links.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | Yes | Chain name or slug, e.g. 'Ethereum', 'base', 'zksync'. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry all behavioral disclosure. It indicates the tool 'serves' details, implying a read operation, and enumerates the exact data categories returned. However, it does not state side effects, permission requirements, rate limits, or error behavior, which are relevant for a tool with zero annotation support.
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 sentence that immediately front-loads the primary purpose ('Full details for one chain') and then enumerates the detail categories without any filler. Every phrase carries relevant information, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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?
The tool has one required parameter and no output schema. The description lists the main detail groups, which helps the agent infer the value provided. However, it could be improved by noting response format, error handling behavior, or an explicit pointer to list_chains for a chain inventory. Given the low complexity but absence of behavioral caveats, it is adequate but not comprehensive.
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 input schema covers 100% of the parameter 'chain' with a clear description and example, so the description does not need to re-explain the parameter. It does not add extra information about the chain parameter beyond what is in the schema, but it does clarify the context of what chain selection means. A baseline of 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?
The description states a clear purpose: it provides 'full details for one chain', with explicit mention of chain ID, category, block time, native currency, endpoints, and docs links. This distinguishes it strongly from siblings like list_chains (all chains) and get_pricing (price only), though it doesn't use an explicit verb form like 'Fetches' or 'Returns'.
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 that this is the right tool for a single chain's comprehensive metadata, but it does not explicitly say 'use when you need one chain's details' or name alternatives for other cases. There is no caveat or when-not-to-use guidance, leaving the agent to infer the intended scope.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.