encode_calldata

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

No annotations provided; the description describes a pure encoding operation without side effects. It does not disclose error conditions or edge cases (e.g., invalid ABI), but for a computational tool, this is minimally acceptable.

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?

Three concise sentences: first states the purpose, second lists inputs, third describes outputs. No wasted words, and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description specifies the return values ('hex calldata and function selector'). It covers the essentials for a simple encoding tool, though could be improved by noting that the calldata is ready for use with call_contract.

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%, and the description adds context beyond the schema: it explains that args can be omitted for zero-arg functions and clarifies the wallet_id parameter for multi-wallet scenarios. This adds value.

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 verb 'Encode' and the resource 'EVM function call into calldata hex.' It specifies the inputs and outputs, and the context of use with call_contract distinguishes it from sibling tools like call_contract.

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 states the required inputs and the output's purpose ('for use with call_contract'), but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives. It is still clear enough for an AI to understand its primary use case.

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