contract_check

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes the return data and detection capabilities. Does not mention potential errors, rate limits, or side effects, but is reasonably transparent about what the tool does.

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?

Two sentences: first states purpose and return fields, second gives usage context. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.

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?

Tool has an output schema, so description needn't detail return values fully, but it lists several key fields. Lacks details on supported chains for the 'chain' parameter. Overall covers main aspects adequately.

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 has 2 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only implicitly addresses 'address' by mentioning 'any EVM address' but does not explain 'chain' parameter (default 'eth') or valid values. Adds little meaning beyond the 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?

Clearly states it verifies smart contracts for any EVM address, listing specific return fields (verified, is_proxy, proxy_type, owner, deployment age). Distinguishes itself from sibling audit tools by focusing on proxy detection and verification status.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use before interacting with an unknown contract to detect hidden admin keys, upgradeable proxies, or unverified bytecode.' Provides clear context for when to use, though does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use.

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