get_events_by_contract_address

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the 'recent' scoping constraint but does not disclose pagination behavior (e.g., fingerprint token) or the meaning of onlyConfirmed beyond what the schema lists. No contradiction with 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the verb and resource immediately. Every word earns its place, with no redundant phrasing or filler.

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?

With 7 parameters and multiple sibling event tools, a one-sentence description is sufficient to convey the core purpose but lacks explicit differentiation from siblings and does not mention pagination or confirmation behavior. Schema and annotations cover many details, but the description leaves the agent to infer usage 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with useful descriptions for all 7 parameters, including defaults, enums, and filter options. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score applies.

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 ('events emitted by a specific contract address'), clearly distinguishing it from event-fetching siblings that filter by transaction ID, block number, or latest block. The contract-address scope is explicit and unambiguous.

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 when a specific contract address is known, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide when-not guidance. With multiple event-fetching tools in the sibling list, some differentiation would help, but the 'by contract address' phrasing gives a clear contextual clue.

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