call_read_only_function

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the most important trait (read-only, no signing/wallet unlock needed). It says nothing about cost, failure modes (missing contract, wrong arg types), or the shape of the returned value, which is significant for a generic contract-call tool.

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 first sentence is tight and front-loads the useful information. The second sentence is a cross-sell for an unrelated tool and does not help select or invoke this one, so it does not fully earn its place.

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 annotations and no output schema means the description should explain what a read-only call returns (e.g. result representation, how to interpret tuple/response types). For a four-parameter generic contract-call tool that gap is material and unaddressed.

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 contractId format, functionArgs encoding, and optional senderAddress are already documented structurally. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline here.

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 specific verb and resource ('Call a read-only function on a smart contract') plus the key qualifier 'no signing required'. It implicitly contrasts with call_contract by emphasizing read-only, but never names the sibling or states the boundary explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus call_contract, or what makes a function eligible (e.g. must be defined as read-only in the contract). The only tip is a promotional pointer to `earning_opportunities`, which does not help an agent decide between tools.

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