vechainstats_get_contract_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that this is a read operation via the verb 'Get', but it does not disclose how invalid addresses are handled, potential rate limits, or what precisely is included in 'metadata'. The minimal disclosure leaves significant behavioral unknowns.

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 sentence that is direct and front-loaded. It contains no filler words and immediately conveys the core purpose. It is concise without being incomplete in structure.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must compensate. It only vaguely mentions 'verification status and metadata' without specifying return structure, and the 'expanded' parameter remains undocumented. For a tool with this level of structural support, the description is insufficiently complete.

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 only 50% (address is described, expanded is not). The description does not explain what 'expanded' controls or clarify the expected address format. It mentions 'verification status and metadata' but that relates to output, not parameter semantics. The description adds no value beyond the minimal schema descriptions.

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 'Get contract information including verification status and metadata' clearly states the action (get), the resource (contract information), and specific scope (verification status and metadata). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_contract_code (which retrieves code) and get_token_info (which focuses on token-specific details).

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. There are no exclusions, no mention of prerequisites, and no explanation of scenarios where a sibling tool might be more appropriate. The usage context is entirely implied by the tool name.

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