justhandled_tool_call_contract_auditor

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention the $0.05 USDC cost on Base mainnet, which is useful, but it omits whether the operation is read-only, whether authorization is required, what happens on contract violations, or any output format. Only minimal behavioral context is provided.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the action verb 'Audit', and includes the cost in a compact second sentence. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the tool description is under-specified. It fails to explain return values, failure behavior, how to structure the contracts/calls arrays, or when to invoke the tool. This is a significant gap for a tool with complex nested parameters and no structured fallback.

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 0%, and the description does not explicitly map parameters. It hints that 'calls' are recorded tool calls and 'contracts' are declared authorization/argument/call-count/outcome contracts, but it does not define their precise structure, required fields, or formatting expectations. The high-level domain context is insufficient for correct parameter construction.

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-resource pair: 'Audit recorded tool calls against declared authorization, argument, call-count, and outcome contracts.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like tool_description_contract_linter and completion_evidence_receipt_auditor by focusing on recorded tool calls and the enumerated contract dimensions.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The cost note is practical but not a usage directive. The agent gets no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, making the choice among sibling audit/checker tools ambiguous.

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