alert_contract_event

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'create an alert' but does not disclose side effects, persistence, notification mechanism, or how to manage created alerts. The agent is left unaware of outcome or lifecycle, which is insufficient for a creation operation.

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 with zero redundant words, front-loading the core action and object. It is appropriately sized for the simple operation it describes, making it efficient and scannable.

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?

The tool has moderate complexity (nested filter, 4 parameters) and no annotations or output schema, requiring the description to explain more about what creating an alert entails. It lacks information on return values, how to verify success, or any prerequisites. The description is too minimal to be fully actionable for an agent.

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%, so all four parameters (chain, filter, eventSignature, contractAddress) have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional semantics beyond those already present, resulting in baseline score as per coverage guidelines.

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 uses a specific verb ('create') and resource ('alert for specific smart contract events'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling alert tools like alert_price or alert_gas. Even without naming alternatives, the scope is unambiguous and matches the tool name.

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 smart contract event monitoring, but does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives (e.g., alert_price, alert_wallet_activity). No exclusions or context are provided; it relies on the tool name and sibling context to infer appropriate use.

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