get_storage_at

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that it reads raw storage, which implies a low-level operation, and mentions reading private variables (a key insight). However, it does not explain behaviors like whether the returned data is raw bytes, how slots are computed, or any network-specific nuances. It adds some value beyond the schema but lacks depth.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action ('Read raw storage from a contract at a specific slot') and followed by a concise use case. Every word contributes meaning, with no fluff or repetition.

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?

Given that no output schema exists, the description could have explained what the return value represents (e.g., raw 32-byte word), but it does not. It covers the 'why' (reading private variables) and the core 'what', but lacks details on return format and edge cases. For a low-level EVM tool, this feels minimally adequate but incomplete.

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 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters: address, slot, and network. The description does not add anything beyond the schema, but it does reinforce the purpose by linking 'slot' to 'storage slot with example '0x0'. Since coverage is complete, a baseline 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 clearly states the verb 'Read' and the resource 'raw storage from a contract at a specific slot', which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like get_contract_bytecode or read_contract. However, it could more explicitly distinguish itself from read_contract, which also reads contract state.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: 'Useful for reading private variables or understanding contract state.' It implies an alternative approach is available for regular contract reads, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. Sibling tools like read_contract and simulate_transaction are available but not mentioned.

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