yultrace-audit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions running Slither (a security analysis tool) but doesn't describe execution characteristics like time requirements, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with unverified contracts. This leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality, making it easy to understand quickly.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values) and 100% schema coverage, the description is reasonably complete for its purpose. However, as a security analysis tool with no annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral context about execution characteristics and limitations.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema (chain selection and address format). This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 specific action ('Run Slither'), target resource ('verified EVM contract'), and outcome ('return a finding summary'). It distinguishes this tool from its sibling 'supported_chains' by focusing on contract analysis rather than chain listing.

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, prerequisites (e.g., contract verification), or exclusions. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage information.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool returns 'verified Solidity source' and clarifies it's 'no Slither,' which adds useful context about what's excluded. However, it doesn't address potential limitations like rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions that would be important for a tool fetching external contract data.

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 efficient with just two sentences that each serve distinct purposes: the first states the core functionality, the second provides usage context and sibling differentiation. There's zero wasted text, and the information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 existence of an output schema (which handles return values), 100% parameter schema coverage, and the description's clear purpose and usage guidance, this is quite complete. The main gap is the lack of behavioral context about limitations or requirements, which is somewhat mitigated by the tool's read-only nature implied by 'fetch' and 'return' terminology.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but doesn't provide additional value regarding parameter usage or semantics.

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 specific action ('Return the verified Solidity source') and resource ('of a contract'), and explicitly distinguishes it from sibling tool 'audit_contract' by stating it's a 'complement' that doesn't include Slither analysis. This provides excellent differentiation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: it's for 'clients that want to run their own analyser, diff against a local fork, or just read the deployed source,' and specifically mentions it's a complement to 'audit_contract' (which presumably includes Slither analysis). This gives clear context for tool selection.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It clearly indicates this is a read-only operation that returns a list, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like response format, error conditions, or performance characteristics. The description adds basic context but lacks depth.

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?

Single sentence with zero wasted words. Front-loads the core action ('Return') immediately, followed by the exact resource. Every element serves a clear purpose in communicating 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 simplicity (no parameters, has output schema), the description provides sufficient context about what the tool does and why. The output schema will handle return value documentation, so the description appropriately focuses on purpose rather than output details.

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 has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose. This exceeds the baseline expectation for parameterless tools.

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 specific action ('Return') and resource ('list of chain aliases'), with explicit mention of the audit tool context. It distinguishes from the sibling 'audit_contract' tool by focusing on metadata retrieval rather than contract auditing.

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 usage context ('the audit tool accepts'), suggesting this tool should be used to discover valid inputs for the sibling audit tool. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when NOT to use it or direct comparison with alternatives.

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