call_read_only_function

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It does state that the call is 'read-only' and 'without creating a transaction', which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose other aspects like error behavior, network requirements, or response format, leaving some gaps.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly communicates the tool's purpose without any filler. Every word contributes meaning, and it includes the important distinction 'without creating a transaction'.

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 moderate complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description provides the essential purpose but does not mention what the return value represents (the Clarity function result) or any caveats about read-only function behavior. The schema covers parameters, but the overall context is not fully complete.

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 has 100% parameter description coverage, including examples for functionArgs and default values for sender and network. The description adds no extra parameter information, so it does not exceed the baseline set by the schema.

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 ('Call a read-only function') and the resource ('on a Stacks smart contract'), and adds the key qualifier 'without creating a transaction' which distinguishes it from any transaction-based tool. It is specific and differentiates from sibling tools focused on accounts, transactions, and blocks.

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 for read-only contract calls that don't require a transaction, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. No alternative tools are mentioned, so the guidance is only implicit.

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