contract_analyze

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and discloses key behavioral traits: it's a paid operation ('Costs 1 HBAR'), involves computational analysis ('Deep analysis'), and outlines specific analytical aspects. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, error conditions, or output format details.

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 front-loaded with core purpose, followed by specific analysis components and cost, all in two efficient sentences with zero wasted words. Every element adds value without redundancy.

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?

For a 2-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and cost well but lacks details on output structure, error handling, or performance characteristics. It's adequate but has clear gaps given the analytical complexity implied.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying contract_id is for analysis, aligning with the baseline expectation when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Deep analysis') and resource ('Hedera smart contract'), with detailed scope ('activity patterns, caller distribution, gas usage, risk assessment, and functional classification'). It distinguishes from siblings like contract_call (execution) or contract_read (simple query) by emphasizing comprehensive analysis.

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 usage for in-depth contract analysis but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like token_analyze or governance_analyze. It mentions cost ('Costs 1 HBAR'), which provides some context but doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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