get_contract_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying what data is returned (ABI, function signatures, raw metadata), but it does not add further behavioral context such as network behavior, response format, or exceptions. It is adequate but not rich.

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, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the action and resource, then lists specific deliverables. Every word earns its place.

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 its simplicity (2 params, no output schema) and strong annotations, the description is largely complete. It tells users the key return contents. However, it lacks any guidance on how it differs from the many sibling read tools, which would make it fully self-contained for agent decision-making.

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 (network and contractAddress) already documented. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline for full schema coverage is 3, so it is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('contract'), and specifies the scope: ABI, readable function signatures, and raw metadata. It clearly states what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from similar sibling tools like get_contract, fetch_contract_abi, or read_contract, so it misses the sibling-differentiation criterion for a 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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. It mentions 'high-level information' which implies a use case, but there are no exclusions or references to sibling tools, leaving the agent without clear decision support for choosing between this and many similar contract-related tools.

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