Get verified contract source

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the main edge case: an empty result for an unverified contract. It does not describe error behavior, data-source limitations, or other side effects besides returning source/compiler/ABI data.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the concrete return contents and immediately follows with the most important uniqueness condition: empty result if not verified.

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 simple two-parameter lookup, the description is mostly sufficient: it names the expected artifacts and the key edge case. It would be slightly more complete if it described the return structure or explicitly stated that it does not create or modify data, but the overall behavior is clear.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters and has 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-level nuance beyond saying the output comes from Blockscout, so the by-default baseline 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 names a specific artifact domain: “Verified source code, compiler settings, and ABI of a contract” from Blockscout. This is a clear verb + resource statement and distinguishes the tool from general account or contract-metadata lookups. The empty-result note further defines what the tool returns.

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 when to use it: when someone needs verified contract source code or compile settings from Blockscout. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives, state when not to use it, or mention any conditions beyond the unverified-contract empty case.

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