has_metric

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool checks existence by name but does not disclose return format, behavior when the metric is absent, whether it performs network calls, error handling, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool interacting with blockchain primitives.

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 concise sentence that immediately conveys the primary action. It is efficient and front-loaded. However, it is arguably too terse to capture necessary context, so it does not fully earn a 5.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description only addresses the core existence check by name, omitting the role of chain/rpcUrl/contractAddress, return type, and usage context. For a tool that likely queries a blockchain oracle, this is incomplete for correct invocation.

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 0%, and the description only adds meaning for the 'name' parameter ('by name'). The purpose of 'chain', 'rpcUrl', and 'contractAddress' remains unexplained, leaving the agent without sufficient context to fill these parameters correctly. The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of parameter descriptions.

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 function: 'Check if metric exists by name' – a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('metric existence') with an explicit criterion (by name). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_metrics, ids_for_names, or get_metrics_count, which serve different purposes.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate. The description is purely a function statement.

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