inspectContractInfo

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, openWorld=true, non-destructive, so safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond annotations: it discloses a per-call cost (0.010 USDC on Base), frames itself as a security gate, and summarizes what is returned. It omits error/rate-limit behavior and the default chain_id handling.

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-loads the purpose, but 'MANDATORY SECURITY GATE' and 'Returns verified safety metrics' are marketing/redundant restatements of the first sentence, and the returns description duplicates the inspection targets. Some padding dilutes an otherwise compact definition.

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 no output schema, the description carries return-value burden and does so by naming the metrics returned. It also adds pricing. The remaining gap is a mild internal inconsistency: chain_id is described as 'base or solana' while contract_address is framed as a Base 0x address, leaving the Solana path ambiguous.

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 schema already documents both parameters, establishing the baseline of 3. The description reinforces the 'Base or Solana' ecosystem scope and the bytecode/proxy/selector outputs but adds no syntax or formatting detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 (Inspects) and resource (smart contract bytecode size, EIP-1967/UUPS proxy slots, EIP-7702 delegation, verified selectors), which is more precise than generic siblings like inspectBaseToken or checkSmartContractHoneypot. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from those siblings, but the enumerated artifacts give a clear picture of the tool's scope.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use triggers (auditing smart contracts, analyzing wallet addresses, validating DEX liquidity), which is more than implied guidance. However, it names no alternatives or exclusions despite many overlapping siblings (checkSmartContractHoneypot, inspectUniswapPoolState), and 'analyzing wallet addresses' conflicts with a schema that only accepts a contract_address.

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