deploy_custom_contract

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers almost none of it. It does not say the operation is an irreversible on-chain write, that it consumes gas, that credentials/funding are required, or whether it returns the deployed address (no output schema exists to compensate).

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is efficient. It is arguably too terse for a deployment operation, but every word does work.

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 state-changing deployment tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no indication of cost, irreversibility, or return value, the definition is materially incomplete. An agent knows what the tool is called but not what invoking it commits to.

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%, so all three parameters (sourceCode, contractName, constructorArgs) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format or usage detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 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?

States a specific verb (deploy), a specific resource (custom Solidity smart contract), and the target network (Chiliz). The word 'custom' implicitly separates it from the preset deploy_erc20_token / deploy_nft_collection siblings, but it never names or contrasts them explicitly, so the agent must infer the distinction.

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?

No statement of when to use this tool versus the two closely related deployment siblings, and no prerequisites (deployer key, funded account, gas). The agent is left to infer routing from the name alone.

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