get_contract_address

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a meaningful behavioral guarantee ('Returns explicit not-found when unavailable — never guesses') and clarifies that only verified addresses are returned. It still omits return format and data-source details, but for a simple lookup this is solid coverage.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core operation and the useful not-found behavior are both front-loaded.

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?

The tool is simple and the description covers its core use, network scope, and failure behavior. However, the ambiguous 'contract' parameter and the absence of sibling routing make it only minimally complete for confident agent invocation.

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 must compensate. It clarifies 'network' by naming mainnet/testnet, but leaves 'contract' underspecified: an agent cannot tell whether to pass a symbol, name, or address, which is critical for a contract-address lookup.

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 states a specific operation ('Get ... verified contract address') and scopes it to Horizen mainnet or testnet. The 'verified' qualifier and not-found guarantee help separate it from generic address/contract lookups, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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 sentence explains when to choose this tool over siblings such as get_token_info or list_contracts. The only contextual hint is the network scope in the first sentence, which is implied usage rather than actual guidance.

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