contract_call

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the encoding (viem), signing (AWS KMS), broadcasting, idempotency via key, and cost. However, it omits failure behavior (e.g., revert, gas issues) and does not clarify the return value (likely a call_id).

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 concise sentences: main action, technical detail, cost. No redundant words. Well-structured and front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description does not explain the return value (expected call_id for tracking) or error handling. Given complexity (9 params, costs), this is a significant gap for agent decision-making.

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% with descriptions for all 9 parameters. The description adds only context about idempotency_key behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema already provides parameter meaning.

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 verb 'Submit' and resource 'smart-contract write call from a KMS wallet', and distinguishes from read (contract_read) or deploy (contract_deploy) siblings by specifying 'write call' and the KMS signing process.

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 implies use for write calls (vs read) and mentions idempotency for retries, but does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternative tools like contract_read for reads.

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