The two tools have overlapping purposes focused on retrieving EVM contract information, which creates some ambiguity. While contract_info provides detailed data including view function results and contract_summary offers a quicker overview, an agent might struggle to choose between them for basic needs. The descriptions help clarify the depth difference, but the core domain overlap remains.

Tool names follow a perfectly consistent pattern with clear verb_noun structure (contract_info, contract_summary). Both use snake_case and share the same prefix ('contract_'), making them predictable and easy to understand. There are no deviations or mixed conventions in the naming scheme.

With only 2 tools, the server feels under-scoped for a 'Contract Inspector' domain. While the tools cover information retrieval, there are obvious gaps in functionality like contract interaction, deployment, or verification. A typical contract inspection toolset would include more operations, making this count insufficient for comprehensive use.

The tool surface is severely incomplete for contract inspection. It only provides read-only information retrieval with no ability to interact with contracts (e.g., call functions with parameters, send transactions), verify source code, or manage deployments. This will cause significant agent failures when trying to perform common contract-related tasks beyond basic queries.