contract_audit

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 discloses that the tool scans code and returns a risk score and findings, which is a useful behavioral disclosure. However, it does not mention whether the code is executed, sent off-platform, or if there are any limitations or side effects, which would be valuable context.

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 a single sentence that is direct and front-loaded. It succinctly states the action, target, scope, and return value without any 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?

This is a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema present, so the description does not need to explain return values in detail. It covers the core purpose and network context ('Base L2'), and adds return value information. The main gap is the lack of parameter format details, but given the low complexity, the overall context is adequate.

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 schema has one parameter ('code') with no description, resulting in 0% schema description coverage. The description mentions 'smart contract code,' which aligns with the parameter, but it does not specify the expected format (e.g., Solidity source vs. bytecode), size limits, or other constraints. Thus, the description only partially compensates for the missing schema metadata.

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 states a specific verb ('Scan') and resource ('smart contract code') with a clear scope ('on Base L2'). It also mentions the return value (risk score + findings). This clearly differentiates it from the sibling tools, which cover gas estimation, yield farming, token analysis, wallet health, mnemonic generation, price, and DEX quotes.

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 that the tool should be used to audit smart contract code, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. No sibling alternatives are named, so the guidance is only implicit.

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