wasm_bytecode_disassembler_auditor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It does disclose the static-analysis nature of the operation and a fixed USDC cost, which is useful. However, it does not state whether the operation is strictly read-only, whether paymentSignature is mandatory, or how audit findings are presented.

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?

One front-loaded sentence covering the core action, output format, audit checks, and cost. There is no filler, and the price parenthetical earns its place because payment context is relevant to execution.

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 and no annotations, and the payload semantics are underspecified: it is unclear whether the .wasm bytes should be raw binary, base64-encoded, or wrapped in a JSON string. The description gives WAT as the output but not how audit findings are returned, so an agent may mis-call the tool.

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 baseline is 3. The payload description is generic boilerplate ('Input parameters or JSON string payload'), and the tool description adds only that the input is a binary module without specifying encoding such as base64 or raw bytes. The paymentSignature parameter is adequately described by the schema.

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?

States a precise verb (disassembles) and resource (WebAssembly .wasm binary modules to WAT), and adds two specific audit goals. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling analysis tools like smart_contract_reentrancy_auditor or validate_code_syntax, though the WASM focus makes confusion unlikely.

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 this tool is for WASM binary disassembly and security auditing, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives. An agent must infer the usage context from the tool's purpose.

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