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 implies a read-only verification but never states that it is non-mutating, what permissions are required, or what the result looks like (boolean vs address), leaving meaningful 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 short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the Args block is compact. Every element serves a purpose, though the purpose sentence could be tightened.

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 simple two-parameter read check with no output schema, the definition is mostly adequate, but it omits the return shape and any note on network-specific behavior. A brief statement of what is returned would close the remaining 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% with no enums, so the description must compensate and largely does: it enumerates valid `red` values (base, ethereum, solana) and clarifies that `direccion` is the address to check. It adds real meaning the bare schema lacks.

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 purpose: distinguishing a contract from a normal wallet (EOA), which is a clear verb+resource outcome an agent can understand. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like contrato_info, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 on when to use this check versus alternatives such as contrato_info, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The agent must infer usage context entirely.

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