get_contract_logs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get event logs' is a straightforward read, but the description does not mention default block ranges, network support, event signature filtering, or any side effects. The schema covers some of this, but the description itself adds no behavioral nuance beyond the name.

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 concise sentence that gets straight to the point with no redundant information. Every word earns its place.

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?

Despite the schema being thorough, the description lacks contextual completeness: it doesn't explain return format, usage guidance, or how it differs from similar log-related tools. For a tool with multiple parameters and no output schema, this is a significant gap.

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 descriptions cover all 5 parameters comprehensively, including defaults and examples for network and eventSignature. The description itself does not add parameter semantics, but the 100% schema coverage justifies a baseline 3.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'event logs from a specific contract', making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like get_logs_by_topic or get_recent_events, so it doesn't fully achieve the 5-level.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. There are no usage scenarios or exclusions mentioned, leaving the agent to infer from the schema alone.

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