check_contract

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 key behavioral traits: the tool requires payment (0.01 SOL) and analyzes contracts, implying it's a read-only analysis tool. However, it lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or what the analysis output includes (e.g., risk levels, specific clauses), which are important for a tool with no output schema.

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 (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the payment requirement. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff.

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 tool's complexity (contract analysis with payment), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the purpose and payment need but misses details on output format, error cases, or analysis scope (e.g., types of risks). This is adequate as a minimum but has clear gaps for effective agent use.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (contractBase64, signature). The description adds value by explaining that the signature is for 'payment proof', which clarifies its purpose beyond the schema's generic description. However, it does not provide additional semantics for contractBase64 or detail payment processing, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 with a specific verb ('Analyzes') and resource ('legal contract'), plus the specific function ('for risks and missing clauses'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'generate_terms' or 'scan_invoice' by focusing on contract analysis rather than generation or invoice processing.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (analyzing legal contracts for risks and missing clauses) and includes a critical prerequisite (payment requirement). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as using 'generate_terms' for creating contract terms instead of analyzing them.

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