get_blockchain_uuid_by_contract_address

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that 'address is case-insensitive' (a useful behavioral trait), but lacks other critical details: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, what the output format is (e.g., returns a UUID), error handling, or rate limits. For a lookup tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap, warranting a 2.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences: the first states the purpose, and the second adds context about terminology variations. It's front-loaded with the core function and avoids unnecessary details, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., explicitly mentioning the output). Overall, it's efficient with little waste, earning a 4.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the purpose and parameter context but lacks output details (what 'UUID' means or the return format) and behavioral traits like error cases. Without annotations or output schema, it should do more to compensate, resulting in a 3 for being minimally adequate.

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%, with both parameters ('blockchain' and 'address') well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it clarifies that 'contract address' terminology varies by ecosystem and gives an example (Tether on Ethereum), but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. This meets the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find a specific coin by the contract address on its blockchain.' It specifies the verb ('Find') and resource ('specific coin'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_coin' (which likely uses a different identifier). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'get_coins' for multiple coins), keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 context by explaining the term 'contract address' varies per ecosystem (e.g., 'smart contract address' in Ethereum, 'token address' elsewhere). It suggests this tool is for looking up coins by blockchain-specific addresses, but doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'get_coin' (which might use a coin ID) or provide exclusions, resulting in a score of 3 for implied guidance.

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