smart_contract_audit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the analysis method (RattlerAI with Claude Opus + Slither), false positive filtering, and output format. It also mentions the cost ($2.00). Lacking are potential destructive behaviors or side effects, but as a read-only analysis tool, this is acceptable.

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?

The description is a single five-sentence paragraph that is dense with information: purpose, capabilities, validation, output format, usage, and cost. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the complexity of the tool and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description covers key aspects: vulnerability classes, validation, output format (severity report), and usage. It lacks explicit error handling or prerequisites (e.g., Solidity version), but overall it is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to use.

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 compensates by explaining that 'source' can be Solidity code or a GitHub URL (implied for `github_url` parameter). It also mentions `contract_name` with default 'Contract'. Although not all parameters are fully detailed, it adds meaningful guidance 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?

The description clearly states the tool does a 'Solidity smart contract security audit' and lists specific vulnerability classes, distinguishing it from sibling audit tools like 'rust_contract_audit' and 'move_contract_audit'. The verb 'audit' and resource 'smart contract' are explicit.

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 states 'Ideal as a pre-deploy sanity check or audit triage', providing clear use cases. It also specifies input types (Solidity source code or GitHub URL). However, it does not explicitly exclude non-Solidity contracts or mention when not to use this tool over siblings.

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