aries_contract_meta

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool uses the alkanes_meta view and will error for non-implementing contracts. It does not specify response format or any other behavioral traits, but the warning about errors is valuable. Slight lack of detail on response structure.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no extraneous text. The first sentence states the core purpose and parameters, the second provides critical usage guidance and alternatives. Every word earns its place.

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 complexity of the tool (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameter usage, error scenarios, and alternatives. It is complete enough for an agent to use effectively, though a description of the return format would enhance completeness.

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% (block and tx have descriptions, blockTag does not). The description adds value by explaining that the string id form is 'block:tx', clarifying the relationship between block and tx. However, it does not address blockTag at all, leaving it partially undocumented.

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 ('Get an Alkanes contract's metadata'), the specific fields returned (name, symbol, decimals, totalSupply), and the resource identifier (alkane id with block and tx). It distinguishes from sibling tools by noting alternative tools for contracts that don't implement the meta view.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: for contracts that implement the alkanes_meta view. It also gives clear when-not-to-use guidance, noting that some contracts (e.g., frBTC 32:0) will error, and specifies alternative tools (aries_simulate, aries_frbtc_status) for those cases.

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