get_chain_id

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. It states the tool 'gets' data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like error handling (e.g., what happens if the chain name is invalid), performance (e.g., speed or rate limits), or output format. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get the chain ID'), making it easy to understand at a glance. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to explaining the tool's function.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, or output. For a simple lookup tool, this might suffice, but it doesn't provide a complete picture for an agent to use it effectively without additional inference.

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 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'chain_name' fully documented. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain what a 'chain name' entails or provide examples). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('chain ID'), and specifies the input ('for a given chain name'). However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its siblings (like get_filtered_rpc_list or get_token_balance), which all appear to be blockchain-related queries but serve different functions.

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. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts for usage, nor does it reference sibling tools. The agent must infer usage based solely on the tool name and description without explicit direction.

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