aptos_view_function

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

The description claims read-only, but since view functions are inherently read-only in blockchain contexts, it adds little beyond the tool name. No annotations exist to compensate. It fails to disclose return value behavior, potential error conditions, or that the function executes on-chain, which would be necessary 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 extremely concise at one short sentence, front-loading the purpose. While efficient, it omits details that could have been included without bloating, such as an example or context about return values.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is expected to carry more context about the tool's behavior and return values. It does not mention that calling a view function returns its result, nor does it explain how arguments are passed or any constraints. This is too minimal for a tool with three parameters.

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 input schema provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (function, arguments, typeArguments), including an example for function. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Call a view function (read-only)' clearly identifies the action (call) and resource (view function) specific to Aptos. It is not a tautology and distinguishes from other Aptos tools like get_resources or get_balance, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where another Aptos tool (e.g., aptos_get_balance, aptos_get_resources) would be more appropriate.

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