contract_deploy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently explains the transaction signing process, that the address is returned before confirmation (no polling needed), the bytecode constraints, idempotency key behavior, and pricing. No contradictions.

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 dense but well-organized, front-loading the main action and then detailing constraints, behavior, and pricing. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy despite covering multiple aspects.

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 of contract deployment and the absence of an output schema, the description remarkably covers the key aspects: synchronous address return, bytecode requirements, pricing, and idempotency. It does not explicitly mention error handling for failures, but that is typically covered by error messages.

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%, but the description adds valuable extra context: it clarifies that `bytecode` is full creation calldata (not just bytecode), that `signer_id` will own the contract, that `chain` must match the signer, and explains the idempotency key's effect. This goes beyond the schema definitions.

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 'Deploy a smart contract' and the mechanism (signs a contract-creation tx with `to: null + data: bytecode`). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like `contract_call` by mentioning it returns the CREATE address synchronously and highlighting that it does not compile Solidity.

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 provides contextual hints (e.g., 'Same pricing as `contract_call`') that imply when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, it lacks an explicit directive such as 'Use this to deploy a new contract; use `contract_call` to interact with an existing one.'

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