VulnHunt Security Intelligence

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 only states 'List supported chains' and offers no detail about read-only guarantees, authentication needs, rate limits, or output behavior. The verb 'List' weakly implies safety, but nothing beyond that is disclosed.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It is appropriately sized for a simple listing operation with no parameters.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema, 'List supported chains' is nearly complete and the output schema can cover return values. However, it lacks any context about what chains are supported or how this relates to the sibling tools, leaving a small but real gap.

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 and the schema coverage is effectively complete, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter semantics. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('supported chains'), so an agent can immediately understand the basic purpose. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like vulnhunt_decision or vulnhunt_payment_resources, so it misses the top score.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of the sibling tools, and no context about what 'supported chains' means in the broader workflow. The intended usage is only implicit from the name and description.

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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'Return' but does not explain whether the operation is read-only, whether it makes external requests, what 'bounded free' means, whether there are limits, or what side effects might occur.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, which is good for structure. However, the terseness comes at the cost of meaning: 'bounded free decision packet' is cryptic and would benefit from brief clarification.

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 annotations, no usage guidance, and zero parameter semantics, the description is too thin for an agent to confidently invoke the tool. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the meaning of 'bounded free decision packet' and the role of the parameters remain unexplained.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It implies address and chain_id identify an EVM contract, but it does not explain address format, chain_id semantics, or any constraints or defaults. This is insufficient for a tool with two required parameters.

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 ('Return') and resource ('bounded free decision packet' for an EVM contract), which distinguishes it from sibling tools about chains and payment resources. However, 'bounded free decision packet' is domain jargon and not fully explained, so it is clear at a high level but not precise.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus vulnhunt_chains or vulnhunt_payment_resources. The intended use is only implied by the sibling names and the phrase 'for an EVM contract'; there are no explicit alternatives, exclusions, or preconditions.

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?

Annotations are entirely absent, so the description must carry the full burden. 'Return' implies a read operation, but the description doesn't disclose authentication or payment prerequisites (relevant given the 'paid' and 'x402 terms' hints), any rate limits, or what side effects exist. The 'paid' qualifier hints at cost but is not made explicit for an agent.

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 efficient sentence with zero filler, front-loaded with the primary purpose ('Return the catalog'). It could arguably earn a 5, but it omits any usage or qualification details that might matter, so 4 is fair.

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?

For a zero-parameter query tool with an output schema present, the description is nearly adequate. It names the catalog and x402 terms but leaves the payment/auth dimension ('paid', 'x402') unexplained, which is material for a resource that may require credentials or payment before invocation.

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 zero parameters and schema coverage at 100%, the baseline is 4. No parameter documentation is needed since the schema defines an empty object; the description adds no param info but none is required.

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 ('Return') and a clear resource ('machine-readable paid resource catalog and x402 terms'). The name 'vulnhunt_payment_resources' is expanded by the description, and 'chains'/'decision' siblings suggest distinct purposes, though the description doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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?

No guidance on when to call this tool versus vulnhunt_chains or vulnhunt_decision. Usage context is only implied by the name ('payment resources'), leaving the agent to infer when this is the right sibling.

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