1s_contract_info_live

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It reveals the underlying methods (eth_getCode, supportsInterface) and return values, but does not address error states (e.g., non-contract address), side effects (read-only), or rate limits. The description is moderately transparent but lacks completeness.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with action and key details. No redundant information; every word contributes clarity.

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 tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description covers the core functionality well. It could be improved by noting the return format (e.g., array of strings) or behavior for non-contract addresses, but overall it 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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds minimal value by mentioning the detection mechanism, but does not elaborate on parameter behavior beyond schema. 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's purpose: detect contract type and supported interfaces via specific methods (eth_getCode, ERC165 supportsInterface). It lists returned standards (ERC20, ERC721, ERC1155, ERC165), distinguishing it from siblings that query specific token balances or raw code.

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 contract standard detection but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like 1s_erc20_balance_live or 1s_contract_code. No when-not or exclusion criteria mentioned.

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