encode_call_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It states the operation is to encode function call data, implying a pure computation with no side effects, and 'for use in multicall' adds context about the output's purpose. However, it does not disclose the return format (e.g., hex string), encoding standard, or potential error conditions, leaving some ambiguity for a fully self-sufficient description.

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, efficient sentence: 'Encode function call data for use in multicall'. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and usage context, with no fluff or 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 simple tool with only two parameters and a clear purpose, the description is adequate. The schema fully documents the parameters, and the description explains the tool's role in the multicall workflow. However, without an output schema, a brief note about the return value (e.g., encoded hex string) would have made it fully complete, so it is slightly shy of a perfect score.

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%, with both functionSignature and args fully described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Encode' with a clear resource 'function call data' and a specific context 'for use in multicall'. This distinguishes it from generic encoding tools like abi_encode, encode_packed, and calculate_event_signature, which are present in the sibling list.

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 phrase 'for use in multicall' explicitly ties this tool to the multicall workflow, indicating when it should be used. It provides clear context but does not mention exclusions or alternatives like 'use encode_packed for packed data'. This is a clear context without explicit when-not guidance.

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