chainpeek: decode EVM calldata

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description adds substantive context the annotations cannot: 0.2-1 s latency, USD 0.003 price, a 10-reads-per-IP-per-day free tier, and an explicit warning to treat returned page text and on-chain strings as untrusted data. That is exactly the value-add expected when annotations carry the safety burden.

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?

Purpose and disambiguation are front-loaded, followed by a compact block of input, behavior, timing, price/quota, and safety notes. Every clause carries operational information and nothing is repeated.

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 paid, state-touching-adjacent decode tool this is complete: it covers inputs, no-signature behavior, latency, cost, quota, and untrusted-data handling, and an output schema already exists to carry return-value structure. No gaps an agent would need to call it correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents both parameters. The description still adds semantics the schema does not: omitting `signature` triggers a selector lookup and returns every candidate that decodes cleanly, which materially changes how an agent should read the result.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('decode EVM transaction calldata') and immediately positions it against sibling tools by pointing read calls to eth_call and transaction fetches to get_transaction. An agent can tell this apart from the many other decode_* siblings without opening a schema.

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?

It explicitly routes two adjacent tasks elsewhere (eth_call for read calls, get_transaction for fetching a transaction), which is clear when-not-to-use guidance. However, the nearest sibling, decode_tx_logs, is never differentiated, so an agent decoding on-chain data still has to infer the boundary between calldata and logs.

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