resolve_contract

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read-only lookup but does not mention rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or what happens if the protocol/chain is unsupported. Minimal behavioral context beyond the core operation.

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 well-structured with a concise summary sentence followed by a bullet list of supported protocols, chains, and argument details. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. No extraneous text; every sentence adds value.

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 moderate complexity (many protocols and chains, optional chain_id, output schema exists), the description is fairly complete. It covers the main inputs and what the tool returns (contract addresses). The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return format in detail. Some edge cases (e.g., case sensitivity of protocol names) are not addressed, but overall sufficient.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does so effectively by explaining both parameters: 'protocol' with multiple examples and 'chain_id' with optional usage, examples for common chains, and the effect of omission. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's basic type/title.

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?

Description clearly states the tool looks up canonical deployed contract addresses for Web3 protocols, with a specific verb ('look up') and resource ('contract addresses'). It lists supported protocols and chains, making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like resolve_proposal or query_protocol_docs, which could clarify when to use this over others.

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 examples of argument usage (protocol, chain_id) but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions or prerequisites. For an agent to decide, explicit usage scenarios or exclusions would be helpful.

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