contract_deploy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: synchronous return of contract_address before confirmation (no polling needed), pricing details, and that bytecode must be pre-compiled. Missing are authorization requirements (e.g., KMS signer existence) and failure behavior, but overall it provides adequate transparency for most use cases.

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 concise (three sentences) and well-structured. It front-loads the primary action and progressively adds details. Every sentence serves a purpose: action+mechanism, bytecode specification, and return behavior+pricing. No redundancy or fluff.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value (contract_address). It also mentions pricing and deterministic address. However, it could be more complete by mentioning error conditions, confirmation status, or required permissions. For a deployment tool, it covers essential aspects but lacks some edge-case details.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds significant value beyond schema fields. For 'bytecode', it explains it is full creation calldata including constructor args, must be 0x-prefixed hex, and size limit. It clarifies 'value' is optional native token in wei, and 'idempotency_key' behavior. This helps the agent understand parameter semantics deeply.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Deploy a smart contract from a KMS signer'. It details the mechanism (signs a contract-creation tx) and specifies that it returns the deterministic CREATE address. It also distinguishes itself by noting it does NOT compile Solidity and has same pricing as contract_call.

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 explains when to use the tool (to deploy a smart contract) and provides context for bytecode preparation (client-side concatenation, run402 does not compile). It mentions same pricing as contract_call, implicitly guiding against using contract_call for deployment. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternative tools beyond the pricing reference.

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