contract_diff

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the differential nature (since last check) and access tier, but omits prerequisites (e.g., whether a previous scan is required), whether the operation is read-only, and any side effects like storing state.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. It efficiently packs the action, target, attributes, temporal scope, and access restriction.

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?

The tool has moderate complexity and no output schema or annotations. The description does not explain the return format or the prerequisite of a prior check, leaving an agent without critical context for a differential analysis tool.

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 67%: 'chain' lacks a description. The description does not clarify valid chain values or how parameters interact, and it adds no meaning beyond the schema's existing descriptions for contract and api_key.

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 uses a specific verb 'Detect' and clearly identifies the resource (contract) and the exact attributes monitored (ownership, proxy implementation, mint authority, taxes, honeypot status). The temporal qualifier 'since last check' distinguishes this from one-time scans like scan_contract or deep_scan.

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 a use case: monitoring changes over time, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools (e.g., scan_contract for initial checks) or state when not to use. The 'Pro/Builder only' note is an access restriction, not usage guidance.

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