verify_token_contract

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses what the tool checks and returns (bytecode presence, name/symbol/decimals, block, chain ID), implying a read-only non-destructive operation. It doesn't mention error cases or response format, but for a verification tool this is reasonable disclosure.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and output details, followed by a clear usage directive. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 single-parameter read-only verification tool, the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, the inputs it accepts, the outputs it reports, and when to use it. It doesn't specify the return format, which could be inferred from the listed items, and there is no output schema. Given the tool's simplicity, this is sufficiently 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?

The schema already provides a complete parameter description ('Ticker or ERC-20 contract address (0x...)'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds context about verification but offers no additional parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema states, aligning with the baseline score of 3.

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 function: verifying an ERC-20 contract on Robinhood Chain. It lists the specific checks performed (bytecode deployment, on-chain name/symbol/decimals, current block, chain ID), which distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on market data, supply, holders, and TVL.

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 phrase 'Use before trusting a market quote' provides explicit guidance on when this tool should be invoked. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear and actionable.

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