explorer_get_contract_abi

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety, and the description adds a meaningful behavioral constraint: only source-verified contracts are supported. It does not disclose error behavior or return format, but for a simple read-only tool with strong annotations this is adequate.

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?

Two short sentences with the key action front-loaded. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 read-only tool with complete schema coverage and informative annotations, the description provides sufficient context. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the fact that 'Fetch the ABI' makes the return type obvious, though a brief mention of error behavior would make it fully complete.

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 coverage is 100%, and both parameters (chainId, contractAddress) are already well-described in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage.

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 starts with 'Fetch the ABI', giving a specific verb and resource, and narrows the scope to verified smart contracts. The 'source-verified' restriction helps distinguish it from siblings like evm_get_contract_abi or evm_register_abi.

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 states a clear condition: it works only for source-verified contracts. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over sibling tools such as evm_get_contract_abi or evm_register_abi, leaving the differentiation implied rather than explicit.

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