verify_contract_bytecode

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses a key behavioral fact: a 0.01 USDC cost on Base L2. However, it does not mention that it likely makes a network call, what the response structure is, or potential failure modes. The cost disclosure is valuable but other behavioral aspects remain unclear.

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 two sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the purpose and appends the cost information in parentheses. Perfectly 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 paid network-checking tool with no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value (likely a boolean or status), how to construct the payload, or how the payment signature is used. While the core purpose is clear, significant operational details are missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The parameter descriptions in the schema are generic ('Input parameters or JSON string payload'), and the tool description does not clarify what the payload should contain (e.g., the address). It adds no meaning beyond the schema, so it stays at baseline.

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 tool's function: checks whether an EVM address on Base has deployed bytecode or is an EOA, and explicitly mentions the purpose of preventing wasted transfers to empty contracts. It uses a specific verb 'checks' and a concrete resource, and the outcome (deployed bytecode vs EOA) distinguishes it from sibling tools like verify_evm_signature or decode_evm_calldata.

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 implies usage context—before transfers to avoid wasting money—but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it to alternatives. There are no exclusions or routing statements, leaving the agent to infer when this is the right choice among similar verification tools.

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