explorer_get_contract_creator

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description is not responsible for conveying safety. It adds the return values (deployer and creation transaction hash), which is useful. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as edge cases for contract creations via internal transactions or potential null results, though the annotations lower the bar.

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 a single, concise sentence (11 words) that immediately states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the action and the result, with no filler or redundant details.

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 query with two well-documented parameters, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns. It does not explain return format or edge cases, but the absence of an output schema and the tool's simplicity make this acceptable. It could have mentioned potential null cases or the meaning of openWorldHint, but overall it is sufficiently 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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully explains both parameters (chainId and contractAddress). The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 ('Find') and clearly identifies the resource: the contract deployer and the creation transaction hash. It distinguishes this tool from sibling explorer tools like explorer_get_contract_abi or explorer_get_contract_source, which serve different purposes.

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 implies usage: use this when you need to identify who deployed a contract and the deployment transaction. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives, unlike the best examples that name a specific sibling tool. The context is clear but not expanded with exclusions.

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