evm_register_abi

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

The description claims to 'Register a contract ABI under a label for reuse,' which implies a stateful write operation, but annotations include readOnlyHint=true. This contradicts the read-only hint and misleads the agent about side effects. The description also does not clarify what happens on duplicate labels or whether registration persists across sessions, but the contradiction alone warrants a score of 1.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by a practical reuse instruction. Every sentence earns its place, with no unnecessary details or repetition.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and integration points well. It does not address edge cases like duplicate labels or persistence, but the system context and schema suffice. The annotation contradiction slightly undermines completeness, but the description is otherwise adequate for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 schema has 100% parameter coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that the 'label' parameter becomes the 'abiLabel' used in dependent tools, providing contextual meaning beyond the schema's brief description. This helps the agent understand how the parameters connect to the broader tool ecosystem.

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 ('Register') and resource ('contract ABI'), clearly distinguishing it from other EVM tools. It explicitly mentions the label mechanism and names the dependent tools (evm_read_contract, evm_write_contract, evm_multicall), leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: register an ABI once to avoid repeating the full ABI JSON on subsequent calls. It clearly states the context of use and how it connects to alternative tools, making it easy for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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