Run Contract Report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by stating that the tool combines multiple data sources (network context, snapshot, interface, etc.) into a single report, which is behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 sentence that communicates the core purpose without extraneous words. It is appropriately front-loaded and concise, though the term 'orchestrate' could be simplified for clarity.

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, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description provides a reasonable high-level understanding. However, it lacks specifics about the report structure or how the output can be used, which might require additional exploration.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'address', with a clear description 'Contract address to inspect.' Since the schema already fully documents the parameter, the description does not need to add more. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Orchestrate... into one contract report' and identifies the resource as a composite report, distinguishing it from siblings like genlayer_get_contract_snapshot or genlayer_plan_contract_workflow which focus on individual components. However, 'orchestrate' is slightly vague and could be more precise about the action.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or when not to use it. With many sibling tools performing related but distinct functions, this omission hinders correct selection.

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