getContractMetadata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, any required permissions, or what happens if the contract does not exist. The description is too minimal for a tool without annotation support.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. However, conciseness should not come at the expense of informativeness; it could be expanded slightly to improve completeness.

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 2 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides a basic understanding of the tool's purpose. It lacks usage differentiation from sibling tools and does not clarify return structure or behavior. Adequate but not complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value by hinting at the output content (name, symbol, total supply) but does not elaborate further on parameter meaning beyond what the schema already 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?

The description clearly states it retrieves metadata for an NFT contract, listing examples like name, symbol, total supply. It uses a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like getNFTMetadata or getCollectionMetadata, which could cause confusion.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as getNFTMetadata, getCollectionMetadata, or searchContractMetadata. The description lacks any context about prerequisites or when it is appropriate to invoke.

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