smart_contract_scanner

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool scans for vulnerabilities but doesn't describe how it works (e.g., static analysis, simulation), what inputs it expects (beyond the vague 'params'), or any limitations (e.g., false positives, supported Solidity features). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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—a single phrase listing the tool's core function and key vulnerability types. It's front-loaded with essential information and wastes no words, making it efficient for quick comprehension.

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 smart contract scanning (a non-trivial task with 1 parameter and no output schema), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on input format (e.g., Solidity code structure), output expectations, error handling, or any behavioral context. Without annotations or an output schema, this leaves the agent poorly equipped to use the tool effectively.

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, documenting that 'params' is a free-form object passed as query string or JSON body. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as expected fields or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 purpose: scanning Solidity code for specific vulnerabilities (reentrancy, overflow, access control). It uses a specific verb ('scan') and resource ('Solidity'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools, as none appear to be related to smart contract analysis, so it doesn't need explicit sibling distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lists vulnerability types but doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, it doesn't indicate if it's for production code, testing, or specific Solidity versions, leaving usage unclear.

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