get_contract

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds the nuance that ABI is included 'if verified', which is a useful behavioral condition. No other behavioral traits (e.g., default network, rate limits) are disclosed beyond the annotations.

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?

A single sentence with clear front-loaded action ('Get raw contract metadata'), no filler, and every word contributes value. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 operation with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description states the primary return components (ABI and bytecode) and the on-chain source. It leaves the full scope of 'raw metadata' unspecified, but is adequate for basic use and the annotations cover safety.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions: network defaults to mainnet, contractAddress is the contract address. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate when 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 specifies 'Get raw contract metadata from the chain, including ABI (if verified) and bytecode' – uses a specific verb and resource, and differentiates from sibling tools like fetch_contract_abi by including bytecode and raw metadata. The 'if verified' nuance adds clarity about the ABI's conditional availability.

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 for retrieving raw contract metadata but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over get_contract_info or fetch_contract_abi, nor does it provide exclusions. The context is clear but lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance.

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