contract-query

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it's 'read-only' without detailing behavioral aspects like error handling, response format, rate limits, or authentication needs. It mentions executing a function but doesn't explain what happens if the contract address is invalid or the query fails.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Query a smart contract') with a clarifying detail ('executing a read-only function'). There is no wasted verbiage, and it directly communicates the essential information without redundancy.

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?

For a tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error cases, or output format, leaving gaps in understanding how to use it effectively beyond the basic purpose. The schema covers parameters, but the description doesn't compensate for missing context.

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 fully documents parameters. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying 'queryMsg' is for read-only functions, which is already suggested by 'read-only' in the description. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 action ('query') and target ('smart contract') with the specific operation mode ('executing a read-only function'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'contract-execute' by specifying read-only nature, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all query-related tools like 'get-balance' or 'query-network'.

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 implies usage for read-only contract interactions, suggesting when to use it versus write operations. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this over other query tools like 'get-balance' or 'query-network', nor does it mention prerequisites like network availability checks referenced in the schema.

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