compute_contract_address

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It clarifies that this computes a deployment address (not actual deployment) and specifies the CREATE opcode, but it does not disclose whether the computation is deterministic, the return format, or any prerequisites like nonce correctness. For a pure computational tool, the behavior is fairly clear, but more detail would improve transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. It includes the key detail (CREATE opcode) that distinguishes the tool, earning every word.

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 simple deterministic computation with two fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It names the opcode and the purpose, though it could optionally mention that it returns an address string or that nonce is an integer, but these are implied by the schema and tool name.

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 schema already provides full documentation for both parameters (deployer and nonce) with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already covers.

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 ('Compute') and clearly identifies the resource ('the address where a contract will be deployed'). Mentioning the 'CREATE opcode' distinguishes it from CREATE2-related siblings like compute_create2_address and predict_create2_address.

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 mention of the CREATE opcode implies a distinction from CREATE2 tools, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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