hedera_execute_contract

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

No annotations provided; description only states 'state-changing' (implied destructive) and 'unsigned' (needs signing). Missing behavioral traits: requires gas, may revert, needs signing, output is an unsigned transaction to be submitted. Incomplete for a mutation tool.

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?

Single sentence, no redundancy, front-loaded with key info. 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?

With 8 params, no output schema, and no annotations, description lacks details on return value (unsigned transaction), next steps (sign and submit), and potential failures. Incomplete for a complex tool.

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?

Description adds meaning beyond schema by explaining two usage patterns: structured (abi+functionName+args) vs raw (functionParametersBase64). Schema only lists properties; description gives method selection guidance.

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?

Description states 'Build (unsigned) a state-changing contract call' – a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like hedera_query_contract (read-only) and hedera_deploy_contract (deploy vs call).

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?

Description implies two encoding modes (abi vs raw), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings (e.g., state-changing vs read-only). No mention of when not to use or prerequisites.

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