near_view_function

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key read-only nature, which is useful, but omits other behavioral details such as whether execution happens off-chain, whether gas is charged, or how errors are surfaced. This is minimal but non-contradictory.

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 that conveys both the core action and the read-only safety characteristic without unnecessary filler. It is appropriately concise.

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?

The schema fully documents the input parameters, and the description covers the fundamental purpose and safety trait. However, it lacks usage context, return-value expectations, and a clear distinction from similar view tools, leaving the description somewhat thin but still functional.

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?

All three parameters already have descriptive schema entries (contractId, methodName, args), yielding 100% schema description coverage. The prose description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 identifies the action as 'Call a view method on a contract' and adds the read-only qualifier, which distinguishes it from write/state-changing tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similarly named aptos_view_function apart from the tool name itself.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The read-only hint is helpful but does not explain when a view call is appropriate compared to other contract-interaction tools.

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