get_source

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Gets' source code, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what format the source code is returned in (e.g., raw code, verified source files). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond its basic function.

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, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core function without any redundant words. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, making it easy to parse and understand immediately.

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 (fetching source code from a blockchain) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally complete. It specifies what the tool does and the required parameters but omits details on return format, error cases, and behavioral constraints, which are important for effective use in this context.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('contract' as address, 'network' as blockchain name). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying these parameters are used to fetch source code, so it meets the baseline for adequate but not enhanced parameter understanding.

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 action ('Gets') and resource ('source code for a given contract on a specific network'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_abi' (which might retrieve ABI rather than source code) or 'read_contract' (which might execute contract functions), leaving room for ambiguity in tool selection.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_abi' or 'read_contract'. It mentions the context ('on a specific network') but offers no explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage based solely on the tool name and basic parameters.

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