base_contract

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 does disclose the pay-per-call cost ($0.01 USDC) and outlines the three output dimensions: contract status, bytecode size, and ERC-20 metadata. However, it does not explain behavior for non-contract addresses, invalid addresses, or what metadata fields are returned, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.

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 front-loads the core functionality before the pricing note. Every word contributes meaningful information, with no redundancy or padding.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schemahare, the description adequately covers the main purpose, output categories, and cost. It could be more complete by specifying exact return formatting or behavior for non-contract addresses, but it is not critically incomplete for an agent to select and call the 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?

The schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter, 'address', and the description adds little beyond restating 'base address'. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema already documents the parameter fully; the description does not need to compensate.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: checking whether a base address is a contract, reporting bytecode size, and returning ERC-20 metadata when applicable. It is specific enough to be distinguished from sibling tools like base_balance or base_tx, though it lacks an explicit action verb like 'check' or 'inspect'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, such as base_token or base_balance. The phrase 'if applicable' hints at conditional use cases, but the description does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools, so the agent must infer when this is the right choice.

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