scan_contract

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the actions performed (bytecode verification, honeypot check) but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, any side effects, permissions needed, rate limits, or output format. The term 'static analysis' hints at read-only behavior but is not explicit.

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—one sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It contains no unnecessary words and is well-structured for quick scanning.

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 is simple (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), but the description provides minimal context. It does not explain what the analysis returns, how to interpret results, or any limitations. Given sibling tools offer more specialized analysis, more completeness would help the agent decide correctly.

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 100% and the description restates the parameter requirement ('address (0x EVM address)') but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already describes. The description's mention of 'EVM address' slightly reinforces the schema, but given high coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 performs basic static analysis on any EVM address, specifically bytecode verification and honeypot check. This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like check_rugpull_risk or get_audit_reports.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'Starter tier' implies it might be a basic check, but there are no explicit instructions, prerequisites, or exclusions relative to sibling tools.

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