get_storage_at

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context beyond what annotations provide—such as return format, encoding of 'position', or behavior with invalid inputs. It essentially restates the read-only nature already captured by the annotations.

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, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. It contains no fluff or redundant details. While extremely brief, it conveys the essential action and object efficiently, fitting the conciseness criterion perfectly.

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 tool of this complexity, the description lacks critical context: it does not mention the block parameter, the expected return value (e.g., raw storage data), or how 'position' is interpreted. There is no cross-referencing to related tools or caveats. The rich annotations mitigate some concerns, but the description alone is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool in varied scenarios.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain any parameter: 'address', 'position', or 'block' are left undocumented. The meaning of 'position' (likely a storage slot key, often hex-encoded) is not clarified, and no hints about allowed formats or types are given. This is a complete failure to aid parameter understanding.

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 'Read a contract storage slot' clearly states the action (read) and the specific resource (contract storage slot), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_balance (reads balance) and get_code (reads code). The verb-resource pairing is specific and 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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as eth_call or get_balance. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The single sentence gives the purpose but leaves usage entirely implied.

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