gateway_execute_rpc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action 'execute an RPC call' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what the response looks like. For a tool that performs network calls with potential side effects, this 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 action. There is zero wasted text, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 executing arbitrary RPC calls across blockchains, the description is insufficient. No annotations exist, there's no output schema, and it lacks details on supported chains, method validation, or response format. This leaves critical gaps for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (chain, method, params). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as examples of valid chains or methods. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal value added.

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 verb 'execute' and resource 'RPC call on a specific chain', making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes this as a general RPC execution tool versus sibling tools that are chain-specific or perform specialized operations like gas estimation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., gateway_get_* tools).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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