get_contract_role

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

The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, which is a basic behavioral trait. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and fails to disclose other aspects like return format, error behavior, or whether the role may be unavailable. The minimal context earns a baseline score.

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, direct sentence with illustrative examples and no filler. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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 one-parameter, read-only lookup, the description provides enough to understand what the tool does and when to call it. However, it omits details about the return type and the meaning of 'known', leaving a small gap in contextual 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?

The schema already describes appId as 'Application ID on Algorand' with 100% coverage. The description contributes examples of role values, which clarify the tool's output but not the parameter itself, so it adds only marginal value 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 retrieves the known protocol role for an Algorand application, with concrete examples (amm-router, name-registry, lending-pool). This is a specific verb+resource pairing that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_protocols or identify_application.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools such as identify_application or get_protocol_contracts may overlap in purpose, but the description doesn't address selection criteria or exclusions.

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