sui_grpc_call

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

Given no annotations, the description fully discloses that only READ methods are allowed, that ExecuteTransaction and SubscribeCheckpoints are blocked, that read_mask_paths affects response detail, and details the source routing behavior including fallback and limitations.

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 dense paragraph that front-loads the main purpose. It is concise but could be better structured (e.g., with bullet points) for readability.

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 complexity of 6 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: allowed services, blocked methods, recommended discovery, parameter nuances, routing policies, and network defaults.

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%, but the description adds significant value: explains that read_mask_paths is needed for full fields (otherwise digests), that numeric fields should be passed as decimal strings for BigInt coercion, and the interaction between source and service.

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 it is an 'escape hatch' for calling READ methods on specific services (LedgerService, StateService, MovePackageService), explicitly blocking ExecuteTransaction and SubscribeCheckpoints, which distinguishes it from sibling tools.

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?

Explicitly recommends using sui_describe_grpc_services first to discover available methods, clarifies which methods are blocked and why, and explains the source routing policy for different services.

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