get_contract_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read, and it discloses that the ABI is returned, but it says nothing about whether the contract must be deployed/verified, whether it hits the configured Stacks API URL, what happens on unknown contract IDs, or whether results are cached.

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-loaded. The trailing 'Tip' about earning_opportunities is unrelated to this tool and does not 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?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description should say what 'information' means (source, functions, maps) since nothing else declares the return shape. Stating only 'including its ABI' leaves that partially open.

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% and the single contractId parameter already documents the 'address.contract-name' format, so the description adds nothing beyond it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does all the work.

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?

Specific verb and resource: 'Get information about a smart contract including its ABI.' An agent can tell it apart from get_contract_events (events) and call_contract (writes), though the description never names those siblings 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 alternatives such as get_contract_events, call_read_only_function, or get_token_info. The only extra sentence is a promotional pointer to `earning_opportunities`, which does not help an agent decide to call this tool.

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