contract_call

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

Discloses key behaviors: writing, encoding via viem, signing via AWS KMS, broadcasting, idempotency, and cost. With no annotations, it carries the full burden. However, it does not describe failure modes, return value (likely a call_id), or prerequisites for successful execution.

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?

Three sentences, no redundant information, front-loaded with action and resource. Every sentence contributes purpose, process, or cost.

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?

Despite high parameter count and complexity (KMS signing, gas costs, idempotency), the description is minimal. It omits return value (call_id?), error handling, prerequisites (signer existence, gas balance), and input format for idempotency_key. An output schema or richer description would be needed for full completeness.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining idempotency_key behavior and cost, but does not further clarify complex parameters like args or abi_fragment beyond schema.

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 clearly states the action ('Submit a smart-contract write call'), the source ('from a KMS signer'), and differentiates from sibling tools like contract_read (read) and contract_deploy (deploy new contract) by specifying it's a write call on an existing contract.

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?

Mentions idempotency via idempotency_key and cost structure, which guides when to use and cost implications. Lacks explicit comparison to sibling tools like contract_read vs. contract_deploy, and does not state prerequisites (e.g., signer must be provisioned, chain gas needed).

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