score_contract

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that it uses GoPlus Security API, checks multiple risks, and returns a score 0-100. However, it lacks details on error handling (e.g., invalid address, unsupported chain) and potential side effects like API rate limits, which would improve transparency.

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 five sentences with clear sections: main action, detailed checks in bullet-like format, and usage guidelines. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses no unnecessary words, making it efficient and easy to scan.

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?

With output schema present (return values not needed) and full schema coverage, the description covers the tool's functionality, usage when/not, and specific checks. It lacks mention of error conditions or edge cases like unsupported chains, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a scoring tool.

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%, with both parameters well-described in the schema (example address, chain list). The description adds minor context (e.g., 'tokens and general contracts') but does not significantly enhance meaning beyond the 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 scores a smart contract for security risks using GoPlus Security API, listing specific checks and a risk score range 0-100. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool 'explain_risk' by stating when not to use it and what alternative to use, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 guidance: 'Use this when: an agent is about to interact with an unknown contract or token. Do NOT use for: known safe protocols (use explain_risk for Aave/Morpho/etc.)'. This clearly indicates when to use the tool and when not, along with a specific alternative.

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