Solidity Custom

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly discloses that the tool 'Returns the source code... in a Markdown code block' and 'Does not write to disk', which are key behavioral traits for a code generation tool. However, it does not mention potential errors, validation behavior, or whether any external calls are made, so it is not fully exhaustive.

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 only two sentences and front-loads the core purpose ('Make a custom smart contract'), followed by output format and side-effect disclosure. Every sentence provides essential value without redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 code generation tool with a rich schema (5 parameters, nested object), the description sufficiently covers the return value (source code) and side effects (no disk write). The main gap is usage guidance relative to sibling tools, but many behavioral aspects are already covered by the schema and the description, making it fairly complete overall.

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%, so the description does not need to explain parameters in detail. The schema already provides rich descriptions for all five parameters including nested info fields. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning but none is needed due to the high schema coverage.

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 'Make a custom smart contract' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from standard token generators (solidity-erc20, etc.) by emphasizing 'custom', and the language context is clear from the tool name 'solidity'. The output behavior (source code) is also specified, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus standard contract generators or the cairo-custom sibling. While 'custom' implies it's for non-template contracts, there is no direct statement of prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools, so the agent receives limited decision support.

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