transactions / call_router

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

The description says "Broadcast a raw contract call", an on-chain write, while annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. That is a direct contradiction about the single most important property of the tool. The additional "allowlisted router only" constraint is useful context, but it cannot outweigh a reversed safety signal.

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?

Three short front-loaded fragments with no filler; the scoping constraint lands first. The trade-off is telegraphic compression ("Sim-first, policy-gated") that leaves terms unexplained rather than truly concise.

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 4-parameter, zero-coverage mutation tool with no output schema and contradictory annotations, the description omits prerequisites, failure modes, what gets broadcast, and what comes back. An agent knows the intent but not how to call it safely or interpret the result.

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 0%, so the description must carry all parameter meaning, yet it only hints at `router` (allowlisted). It says nothing about `chain_id` validity, the encoding expected in `data`, or the units/format of `value_wei`, leaving three of four parameters undocumented in both places.

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?

"Broadcast a raw contract call to an allowlisted Rootstock router only" gives a specific verb (broadcast) plus constrained resource, and "Arbitrary targets refused" distinguishes it from a generic send/execute. It does not name the nearest siblings (transactions.send, transactions.prepare, transactions.approve_router), so the differentiation is implicit rather than routed.

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?

"Sim-first, policy-gated" implies a workflow (simulate before broadcasting) and suggests a policy check, but never says when to pick this over transactions.send or transactions.prepare, nor what happens if policy evaluation fails. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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