get_contract_metadata

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 indicates the tool is a read operation by 'Fetches' and lists what will be retrieved, but it does not explicitly confirm non-mutating behavior, error conditions, or response structure. This is useful but not richly detailed.

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 focused sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose and key outputs. There is no redundancy, fluff, or repetition of schema details, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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 absence of an output schema or annotations, the description gives a reasonable summary of the return contents but lacks contextual guidance on selecting this tool over similar siblings. The moderate complexity of the tool calls for more usage context, so the description is adequate but incomplete.

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 input schema provides full descriptions for both parameters, including the network default, so the description adds no parameter-specific meaning. The summary of output contents (code hash, storage usage, etc.) is contextual rather than parameter-related, so the tool meets the schema-coverage baseline.

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 the verb 'Fetches' with a specific resource ('contract metadata') and enumerates concrete examples (code hash, storage usage, detected methods/standards), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_contract_state, the metadata focus is distinct enough for basic selection.

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 offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_contract_state or explain_contract_interface. No prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual triggers are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.

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