contract.audit

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: a paid, x402-gated operation costing 1.00 USDC on Base, which an agent must know before invoking. It stops short of explaining the payment/result flow.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences with zero filler: identity, function, and the gating requirement, in that order. Nothing is wasted and the most decision-relevant constraint is not buried.

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 no explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile, so the description only needs purpose, cost, and preconditions, which it covers. The one gap is sibling differentiation against contract.auditTeaser, which the agent cannot resolve from this description alone.

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 contractAddress, paymentHash, and referralWallet are all self-documented in the schema, and the referral kickback is explained there in detail. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond naming the x402 protocol, so baseline 3 is correct.

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 and resource: audits Base smart contracts for vulnerabilities, with the added qualifier that it is an AI-driven live auditor. It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling contract.auditTeaser, leaving the agent to infer the difference on its own.

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 surfaces a real prerequisite (a 1.00 USDC payment via x402), which is useful invocation context, but gives no when-to-use guidance relative to alternatives like contract.auditTeaser or token.analyze. Usage is implied rather than stated or bounded.

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