xpayr_get_supported_networks

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden; it does convey that this is a read-only enumeration whose result is scoped to the current API key mode, which is genuinely useful context. It does not disclose whether the list is static or dynamically fetched, any rate-limit or caching behavior, or authentication failure modes, leaving meaningful gaps for an annotation-free tool.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the enumerated returned artifacts following in priority order. No filler, hedging, or repetition; every clause names a distinct piece of returned data.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description must indicate what comes back, and it does so by naming networks, chain IDs, RPC endpoints, splitters, and supported tokens. What is missing is any indication of response shape (flat list vs nested per-network objects) or whether the data is live-fetched, which matters for a discovery tool agents will likely call repeatedly.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description's mention of "current API key mode" usefully clarifies the implicit, credential-derived scoping that substitutes for a 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 states a specific verb ("List") and a precisely enumerated resource: active EVM/TRON/Solana/Arc networks with chain IDs, RPC endpoints, splitters, and tokens. None of the sibling tools (balance, profile, payment session, webhook, agent intent) overlap with this network-capability lookup, so an agent can route to it unambiguously.

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 phrase "enabled for the current API key mode" implies the tool should be consulted to discover what the caller's credentials permit (e.g., mainnet vs testnet availability), which hints at usage context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisite (e.g., call before constructing a payment session), and no named alternative or exclusion.

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