contract_source

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

The description discloses that the result depends on the explorer having verified source code, implying possible failure or null returns. This is adequate for a read-only tool, though no annotations exist to supplement. It does not mention side effects, permissions, or rate limits.

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, front-loaded with key action and result. No superfluous words; every part 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 a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core: what it returns and a condition. It could mention the structure of the result (e.g., includes source and ABI as separate fields), but is largely sufficient.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It clarifies that the 'address' parameter refers to a contract address, but does not specify format (e.g., checksummed hex). This adds basic meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 that the tool retrieves verified source code and ABI for a contract, distinguishing it from siblings like contract_abi (which only returns ABI) or verified_contracts (which lists contracts). It also notes the condition 'if the explorer has it,' adding nuance.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., contract_abi for just ABI, or token_metadata for tokens). The description does not mention when not to use it or provide exclusions.

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