contract_call

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the encoding, signing, and broadcast process, idempotency, and cost. It does not mention failure modes or prerequisites but covers key behavioral aspects.

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?

Three concise sentences covering purpose, process, and cost with zero waste. Front-loaded with the core action.

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 description adequately covers what the tool does and how, but lacks information about the return value or any post-call status. Given no output schema, the description should hint at what the agent can expect back.

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 is 3. The description adds value by detailing idempotency and cost, but other parameters are well-described in the schema. Minimal extra semantics 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 submits a smart-contract write call via a KMS signer, distinguishing it from read or deploy calls. The verb 'submit' and resource 'smart-contract write call' are specific.

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 it's for write calls (e.g., mention of broadcasting) but does not explicitly contrast with siblings like contract_read or contract_deploy. It lacks when-not-to-use guidance.

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