Raw JSON-RPC call

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral traits. It does not disclose whether calls are read-only, what side effects may occur, error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs. This is insufficient for a tool that can invoke arbitrary RPC methods.

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 concise (three sentences, one parenthetical) and front-loads the purpose. Every sentence adds information; there is no fluff. Could be slightly more structured with bullet points for clarity.

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 explains what the tool does and when to use it. However, with no output schema, it omits any mention of return values or error behavior. For a general-purpose tool, more context about result structure and potential failures would improve completeness.

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 only a redundant note about `params` being the JSON-RPC params array. It does not explain how chain slugs are derived or method naming conventions beyond the schema. No extra value.

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 makes arbitrary JSON-RPC 2.0 calls, specifies supported chains (EVM, Solana, Sui), and explicitly frames itself as the general-purpose alternative to convenience tools. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_block_number and get_balance.

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 explicitly says 'prefer it whenever no convenience tool fits,' providing clear guidance on when to use this tool. It also lists affected chains. However, it does not explicitly exclude cases where a sibling tool is appropriate, leaving some ambiguity.

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