get_contract_state

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by noting keys and values are decoded to human-readable strings where possible. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, network-specific nuances, or potential side effects, leaving gaps given the lack of annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and resource, and contains no unnecessary details. It is concise and well-structured for a read tool.

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 simplicity of the tool and complete schema coverage for all parameters, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and the key behavior of decoding values. It does not describe the return format in detail, but the phrase 'returns storage entries' is sufficient for a straightforward read operation.

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 parameters are fully described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what is already in the schema, such as the meaning of limit or network.

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 reads and returns storage entries for a Soroban contract, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like invoke_contract or deploy_contract by focusing on reading state rather than executing or deploying.

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 the tool is used to inspect contract storage, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusions. No comparison is made with sibling tools such as get_account_info or invoke_contract.

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