vulnhunt_decision
Return a bounded free decision packet for an EVM contract.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | ||
| chain_id | Yes |
Output Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
VulnHunt Security Intelligence
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
- First observed
TDQS
C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5
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.
Conciseness3/5
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.
Completeness2/5
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.
Parameters2/5
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.
Purpose4/5
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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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.