contract_call

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It describes the process (encode, sign, broadcast), idempotency, and cost. However, it omits failure scenarios, rate limits, return behavior, or eventual consistency. While helpful, it leaves gaps for a write operation.

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: three sentences, each serving a purpose. The first sentence states the action, the second explains the process, the third adds idempotency and cost. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 complexity (9 parameters, write operation) and no output schema, the description should hint at the return value (e.g., call_id or transaction hash). It does not mention what the agent should expect as output, leaving a gap. It is adequate for usage but not fully complete.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context for the idempotency_key parameter (explaining its effect) and mentions cost, which aids understanding. Other parameters are not elaborated beyond schema, but the added value for one key parameter justifies a 4.

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 action ('Submit a smart-contract write call') and the resource (smart-contract via KMS signer). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like contract_read and contract_deploy by specifying it is a write call. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 usage for write operations and provides cost and idempotency details, which help in decision-making. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives like contract_read. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusion guidelines.

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