audit_contract

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and excels. It details the free and premium audit behaviors, the detectors used, output format (verdict, risk score, findings), and the prerequisite for deep audit (API key). It clearly sets expectations.

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 dense paragraph but front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, though it could be more structured (e.g., bullet points) for quicker scanning. Slightly verbose but still efficient.

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 no output schema and two parameters, the description is comprehensive. It covers input types, tiers, output expectations, and use cases. No gaps are evident for an AI agent to understand and invoke 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 description adds significant meaning beyond the 100% schema coverage. For 'source', it expands to accept bytecode. For 'deep', it explains the premium audit capabilities in detail. This extra context aids correct parameter selection.

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 performs a static security audit of Solidity smart contracts or deployed bytecode, specifying the verb 'audit' and the resource. It effectively distinguishes the tool's function even without sibling tools.

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: 'Call this BEFORE deploying, approving, or sending funds to a contract.' It also explains when to use the free vs premium tier, though it does not list alternatives or when not to use.

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