get_ltc_chain_tips

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint, covering safety. The description adds behavioral context by stating it is a 'READ-ONLY' operation and requires specific configuration (LITECOIN_RPC_URL). This goes beyond the annotations and provides actionable information without contradiction.

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 reasonably concise and front-loaded with key information: purpose ('READ-ONLY — litecoind getchaintips output'), mirror relation, and configuration requirement. The final sentence about self-hosting and issue numbers is less essential and could be trimmed for brevity, but overall structure is effective.

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?

While annotations are present and the tool has no parameters, the description lacks details about the output format (what getchaintips returns) and potential limitations. For a tool without an output schema, additional context about the response structure would improve completeness. The description assumes familiarity with litecoind, which may not hold for all agents.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage. According to guidelines, a baseline of 4 is appropriate. The description notes the need for LITECOIN_RPC_URL, which is not a parameter but an environment variable, adding contextual value beyond the schema.

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 it provides 'litecoind getchaintips output' and explicitly identifies itself as a mirror of 'get_btc_chain_tips' for LTC. This verb+resource combination, along with the READ-ONLY prefix, makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from siblings like get_ltc_block_tip, which focuses on a single tip.

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 mentions the requirement for LITECOIN_RPC_URL to be configured, which is a key prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_ltc_block_tip) or provide any when-not-to-use guidance. The reference to self-hosting and issue numbers adds operational context but does not directly guide tool selection.

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