cast_call

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: read-only, no gas spent, no state change. This tells the agent it is a safe, non-modifying operation. However, it does not cover error handling, permission requirements, or result format.

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 the key concept 'Read-only call'. No wasted words.

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?

Brief description is adequate for a simple call, but lacks details on return value (no output schema) and edge cases. Considering 5 parameters and no annotations, more context about what the tool returns would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 100% so baseline applies. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It does not explain formatting or constraints beyond what is in 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 'Read-only call to a deployed contract — no gas spent, no state change', which specifies the action (call), the resource (deployed contract), and its effect (no state change). It distinguishes itself from siblings like cast_send, which is a write operation.

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 implies usage for querying contracts without modifying state, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., cast_send for write, cast_balance for balance checks). No guidance on 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.