chainpeek: read a contract storage slot (eth_getStorageAt) on Ethereum, Base or Robinhood Chain

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

Annotations declare the safety profile, and the description adds real operational context beyond them: old blocks require an archive node and may fail, RPC reads are cached up to 30 s, invalid input returns 422 before payment, typical latency under 1 s, price and free-tier limits. That is exactly the value-add expected when annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/destructive.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then returns, then failure/caching/pricing facts; nearly every clause carries information. Slightly dense with metered-payment and free-tier detail, but nothing is truly wasted.

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?

With an output schema present, return-field explanation is optional yet supplied (value/as_uint/as_address/is_zero). Chains, block tags, failure modes, caching, cost and auth-free read semantics are all covered, leaving nothing an agent needs to invoke 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents slot, block, chain and address formats. The description's mention of 'latest, pending, finalized or a block number' restates the schema rather than adding new constraint meaning, so 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 specific verb+resource ('read a contract storage slot') plus the underlying RPC ('eth_getStorageAt') and the exact chains supported. It explicitly routes the proxy/admin-slot case to the sibling detect_proxy, so an agent can separate it from that tool 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?

Clearly names the alternative ('For proxy implementation and admin slots use detect_proxy'), which is precise conditional routing. It stops short of covering other adjacent siblings (eth_call, get_contract_code) or when-not to use it, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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