explain_contract_interface

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Analyzes' and 'provides explanation,' but does not disclose whether it is read-only, what data it accesses, potential costs, rate limits, or what form the explanation takes. This is a minimal transparency gap.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the main verb and outcome, and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only 2 parameters, the description should provide more context about what the explanation includes, whether it's a textual summary, and any caveats. The current description leaves the return format and depth of analysis unspecified, so it is incomplete for an agent deciding whether to use it.

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 already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable per baseline 3. It does not explain how contract_id or network affect the explanation, but it also does not need to given high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Analyzes') with a clear resource ('a contract') and outcome ('human-readable explanation of its purpose and main functions'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_contract_metadata or call_view_method, which have different purposes.

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 states what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It does not mention when to prefer this over get_contract_metadata or call_view_method, nor any exclusions or preconditions.

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