decode_calldata

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: resolves 4-byte selector via openchain.xyz, ABI-decodes args, provides cost ($0.001 USDC), and specifies error for solana. No contradictions.

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?

Concise, front-loaded with main purpose, logically structured with key details (behavior, use cases, constraints) in minimal sentences.

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?

Provides sufficient context for a tool with no output schema: purpose, external resolution, cost, constraints. Lacks details on failure cases (e.g., invalid calldata, missing signature), but coverage is adequate for typical use.

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 covers all parameters (100% coverage). Description adds minor value by reinforcing chain constraint and calldata requirements, but largely repeats schema descriptions. No significant extra semantic insight.

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 verb 'decode' and the resource 'raw EVM calldata', listing specific outputs (function name, signature, typed parameter values). It distinguishes from siblings like decode_tx by specifying EVM-only and calldata-level decode.

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?

Explicitly lists use cases (tx inspection before signing, mempool analysis, debug) and constraints (EVM-only, solana returns 400). However, no direct mention of alternatives among sibling tools.

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