check_contract_safety

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It notes use of an external API but does not disclose mutability (likely read-only), rate limits, or error conditions. The agent cannot infer side effects or safety profile from the description alone.

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, direct, front-loaded with the main purpose. 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?

No output schema is provided, and the description does not explain what the analysis returns. For a tool that checks contract safety, an agent needs to know the kind of result (e.g., boolean, risk score, list of issues) to interpret and use it effectively. Incomplete given the complexity.

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%, and the description does not add new meaning beyond what is in the attribute descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema already handles parameter documentation.

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 verb 'Analyze' and resource 'smart contract', specifying three analysis aspects (verification status, proxy patterns, known risk items) and the external API (GoPlus Security). This distinguishes it well from siblings like check_wallet_safety and check_token_safety.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives like check_wallet_safety or check_token_safety. Description does not mention prerequisites, network selection criteria, or when not to use it.

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