call_view_method

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses the read-only nature, which is the key behavioral trait. However, it does not describe error behavior, return format, or any side effects (though view methods are non-mutating by definition).

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the core purpose immediately and includes the crucial read-only qualifier.

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?

The tool is simple and the schema covers all parameters, so the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema, the description omits what happens after the call (e.g., return value). For a generic view method, the return is unknown, but mentioning that it returns the contract's result would add useful context.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds 'read-only' and 'any' but these are repetitive of the schema's field descriptions (e.g., 'view method'). It does not materially enrich parameter understanding beyond what the schema already provides.

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 specifies a clear verb ('calls') and resource ('view method on any NEAR smart contract'), and explicitly marks it as read-only. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle metadata, state, transactions, or interface explanations.

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 usage: call this when you need to invoke a view method on a NEAR contract. However, it provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparisons with sibling tools, so usage context is only implied.

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