chain-pulse

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 discloses supported chains (Ethereum, Base, Polygon, Arbitrum), free upstreams (DRPC + DeFiLlama), and that no API key is required. It lists the fields returned. It does not mention rate limits or error handling, but for a read-only tool this is adequate.

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?

Three well-structured sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states purpose, the second explains what it does, and the third gives supported chains and upstream details. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 description covers purpose, supported chains, free API, and missing API key requirements. It lists fields returned, which compensates for the absence of an output schema. It does not explain depeg status values, but that is minor. Fairly complete for a simple tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context by listing block and stablecoin fields and explaining the alert_only filter, but does not add deep semantics beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter.

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 tool returns an Ethereum block header and stablecoin depeg status in one call, with a specific verb 'returns' and resources 'block header + stablecoin depeg status'. It distinguishes from siblings like eth-block and stablecoin-watch by collapsing the two-hop chain.

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 this tool is for when both block and stablecoin info are needed together, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (like calling eth-block and stablecoin-watch separately). Guidance is implied but not explicit.

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