add_web_data_access

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. However, it fails to mention key traits: whether the contract is modified in-place, permission requirements, side effects (e.g., overriding existing settings), or what happens on failure. For a mutation tool, this is critically insufficient.

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?

The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. It is extremely concise and contains no extraneous words. Every part is meaningful for understanding the tool's high-level function.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema and the complexity of modifying a contract, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, whether it modifies the contract in place, or any prerequisites (e.g., contract must exist). More context is needed for safe use.

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 parameters are already documented in the schema. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. Thus, the baseline score of 3 applies; no added value to compensate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Add web data access capabilities to an existing contract'. It uses a specific verb ('add') and resource ('web data access capabilities'), making it easy to understand. This purpose is distinct from sibling tools, which focus on other tasks like creating prediction markets or generating contracts.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for existing contracts needing web data access, but offers no exclusion criteria, prerequisites, or mention of alternative tools. With no annotations or further context, an agent lacks decision support.

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