read_contract

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It specifies the operation type ('read data') and technical constraint ('view/pure function'), but lacks critical details like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what the return format looks like. For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence that immediately communicates the core purpose. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information or unnecessary elaboration. The technical specificity ('view/pure function') is appropriately concise.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what data is returned, how to interpret results, error conditions, or practical usage patterns. The technical constraint ('view/pure function') is helpful but doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral and output context.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., how ABI relates to functionName) or provide usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('read data') and resource ('smart contract') with specific technical context ('by calling a view/pure function'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'write_contract' by specifying read-only operations, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other read-focused tools like 'get_erc20_balance' or 'get_nft_info'.

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 context through 'view/pure function' terminology, which suggests this is for non-state-changing contract interactions. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_erc20_balance' for specific token queries or 'is_contract' for address verification.

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