Magneta Contract Risk

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait: the call costs $0.02 in USDC via x402, plus the shape of the returned payload. However, it says nothing about the payment flow — whether payment is required before the call, what happens on insufficient funds, or error/retry behavior — which matters for a paid endpoint.

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?

Two tight sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with the report contents and back-loaded with the cost. Every clause conveys information an agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the return fields and the payment requirement, and the input schema fully covers both parameters. It is nearly complete; the remaining gap is payment/error mechanics, which are not addressed.

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% with two well-documented required parameters (address pattern, chainId), so the schema already does the work. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what is in the schema, which is the expected baseline 3.

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?

Names a specific resource (on-chain smart-contract risk report) and enumerates the report's contents (score, proxy, owner, risky selectors, source verification, static analysis), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It is clearly distinct from the only sibling, supported_chains. It lacks a leading verb, but the purpose is unmistakable.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance; the only cue is an implied 'call this to get a risk report.' No prerequisites beyond the price, no mention of how it relates to supported_chains (e.g., use that first to resolve a valid chainId).

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the call is free and implies a read-only listing, but omits auth requirements, rate limits, and return-shape context for a tool with no output schema.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The 'Free:' qualifier is the only extra information and is directly relevant to the agent's decision.

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 low complexity, zero parameters, and no annotations, the description is nearly complete. It states what is listed and that it is free; no output schema exists, but the return (a chain list) is implied and sufficient for this trivial discovery endpoint.

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, which per the rubric sets a baseline of 4. Schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously), and no parameter meaning is needed from the description.

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?

States a specific verb ('list') and resource ('chains this service can analyze'), making the tool's scope unambiguous. It does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from the sibling contract_risk_summary, so it falls short of a 5 on sibling 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?

Usage is implied: call this to discover which chains are analyzable. There is no explicit when-to-use, prerequisite, or alternative guidance; 'Free' gives a cost hint but does not select between tools.

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