chainpeek: deployed bytecode size, hash, minimal-proxy and EIP-7702 detection of an address

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotent/destructive, but the description adds substantial operational context beyond them: chain scope (Ethereum, Base, Robinhood only), EIP-1167/EIP-7702-only detection, latency (~1 s), error semantics (bad address = 422, not charged), price ($0.001) and free-tier quota. This is well above the bar set by the annotations.

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 scope are front-loaded, and each sentence carries usable information (detection scope, chain support, error behavior, latency, pricing). The pricing/quota/docs run at the tail is slightly dense but genuinely relevant for a paid read tool, so it earns 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Combined with the description's coverage of chains, detection limits, error handling, latency and cost, an agent has everything needed to invoke this 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both the chain enum and the address pattern, and the description's chain list merely mirrors the enum. No additional syntax, format, or case-normalization detail is added beyond the structured fields, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete verb+resource ('Get the deployed bytecode size and hash of an address') and immediately scopes it to EIP-1167 and EIP-7702 detection. It distinguishes itself from the sibling detect_proxy by name, so an agent can choose between them without opening either 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?

Explicit routing is provided: 'For other proxy kinds use detect_proxy,' and the boundary is restated as 'Only EIP-1167 clones and EIP-7702 delegations are detected.' It also flags the supported chains and notes that a delegated wallet is not a contract, which heads off a common misuse.

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