contract_abi

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It states the tool 'fetches just the ABI' implying a read operation, but it does not detail the requirement that the contract must be verified, any error conditions (e.g., unverified contract), or the return format.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and purpose. No extraneous words; it earns its place by clearly communicating the tool's function and typical usage.

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 tool fetching an ABI, the description covers the essential purpose and usage. However, it lacks output format details (e.g., returns a JSON array) and error handling, which would help an agent use it robustly given no output schema.

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 0%, so the description should compensate. It only mentions 'address' implicitly via context, but does not explain what the address parameter expects (e.g., Ethereum address format, checksummed). The agent must infer meaning from the tool name alone.

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 clearly states the tool fetches the ABI of a verified contract, with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes its purpose by linking it to read_contract, differentiating it from other sibling tools like get_source or raw_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?

The description explicitly suggests feeding the result to read_contract, providing a clear use case. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool (e.g., if the ABI is already known) or alternative approaches.

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