ultrade_market_chains

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get blockchain chains' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify if this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what the output format is. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this lacks critical behavioral details, though it doesn't contradict annotations.

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 extremely concise with just three words ('Get blockchain chains'), which is front-loaded and wastes no space. For a simple tool with no parameters, this brevity is appropriate and efficient, making it easy to scan and understand at a glance.

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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't clarify what 'blockchain chains' entails (e.g., a list of chain names, detailed metadata) or how it differs from similar siblings. Without annotations or output schema, more context is needed to guide effective use, making this inadequate for a standalone 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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter semantics, but that's acceptable since there are no parameters. This meets the baseline for tools with zero parameters, as it doesn't mislead or omit necessary info.

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 'Get blockchain chains' states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('blockchain chains'), but it's vague about what 'blockchain chains' means in this context (e.g., networks, protocols, or specific chains). It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'ultrade_market_markets' or 'ultrade_market_symbols', which might overlap in purpose. However, it avoids tautology by not just restating the name.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'ultrade_market_markets', 'ultrade_market_symbols'), it's unclear if this is for listing available chains, retrieving chain details, or another purpose. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving usage ambiguous.

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