near_get_contract_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. 'Get all state keys/values' clearly indicates a read operation and broad scope, but it does not disclose potential large-response limitations, pagination, or that the optional prefix can reduce the result set. It adds basic transparency but lacks richer detail expected when annotations are absent.

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 eight-word sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. There is no redundancy or filler; every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 two-parameter read-only tool, the description and schema together provide enough information to invoke it correctly. It could mention return format or warn about potentially large 'all state' responses, but the low complexity and clear 'keys/values' phrasing make it largely complete.

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 fully describes both parameters: contractId is 'The contract account ID' and prefix is 'Key prefix to filter'. With 100% schema coverage, the description does not need to add parameter semantics, and the phrase 'all state keys/values' aligns with the default empty prefix. Baseline 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 ('Get') and identifies a clear resource ('all state keys/values for a contract'). 'All state' distinguishes this from sibling tools like near_view_function, which reads individual contract functions, and near_get_balance, which reads a specific account balance.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as near_view_function or near_get_access_keys. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual hints beyond the action itself. Usage context must be inferred from the tool name and general knowledge of blockchain state.

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