zetrix_sdk_invoke_contract

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'state change' (indicating mutation) and 'requires private key' (implying authentication), but fails to detail critical aspects like transaction costs, irreversible effects, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads key information ('invoke a smart contract function with state change') and adds necessary constraint ('requires private key'). There is no wasted verbiage, making it appropriately 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?

Given the tool's complexity (state-changing contract invocation), lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits details on transaction outcomes, error scenarios, security implications, and how results are returned. For a high-stakes mutation tool, this leaves significant gaps in understanding.

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%, providing clear documentation for all 6 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only implying that 'privateKey' is required for signing. No additional syntax, format details, or contextual meaning are provided, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('invoke a smart contract function with state change') and resource ('smart contract'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from sibling 'zetrix_call_contract' by specifying 'state change', but could be more explicit about the difference. The description is not tautological and provides meaningful context.

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 by mentioning 'requires private key', which suggests authentication needs. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'zetrix_sdk_call_contract' or 'zetrix_call_contract', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions beyond the private key requirement.

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