inspect_contract_abi_and_proxy

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the bar is lower; the description still adds non-obvious behavioral context — it works without any API key by reading storage slots and raw bytecode directly, and reports dangerous opcodes. It omits rate limits, RPC failure behavior, and partial-result semantics, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the key differentiator and then the specific capabilities; nothing is redundant. It is dense with technical jargon (eth_getStorageAt, PUSH4) that leans toward implementation detail rather than agent guidance.

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?

With no output schema, the description partially compensates by naming the three result categories: implementation addresses, decoded 4-byte selectors, and dangerous opcode flags. It does not describe the response shape or how multiple proxy standards are reported, leaving a modest gap for a two-param analysis tool.

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 100% and both parameters (chain enum, address) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, default, or format detail beyond what the schema already conveys, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: resolving EIP-1967/1822/1167 proxy implementations and extracting PUSH4 selectors and dangerous opcodes from on-chain bytecode. The mechanism (eth_getStorageAt) and named standards make it clearly distinguishable from sibling forensics tools like scan_token_forensics or nullclear_token_security_audit.

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 '[ZERO API KEY REQUIRED]' framing implicitly tells the agent when this tool is preferable to Etherscan/Basescan-dependent alternatives, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named sibling routing. Usage must be inferred from the described capability.

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