contract_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the tool is read-only, requires no signing/gas/billing, and is a 'pure RPC convenience'. Missing details on failure modes or behavior if a non-view/pure function is provided, but overall adequate.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the key purpose ('Read-only smart-contract call') and pack essential behavioral traits. No wasted words.

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?

The description does not mention what the call returns. For a read-only tool, understanding the output format is important. While the schema coverage is high, the lack of output schema information leaves a gap for agents to infer the response structure.

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 has 100% description coverage for all 5 parameters, so the bar is low. The description adds no additional parameter-specific details beyond noting the function is view/pure, which is already implied by the tool's purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it is for read-only smart-contract calls (view/pure functions), explicitly distinguishing it from write operations. The sibling tools include 'contract_call' and 'contract_deploy', which are for write or deploy actions, making the purpose distinct.

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 indicates when to use this tool: for read-only calls with no signing, gas, or billing. It implies that for other operations, sibling tools should be used, though it does not explicitly state alternatives.

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