ucai_analyze_contract

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It adds useful behavioral context by disclosing the price ($0.05 per analysis) and the included analysis types, which imply a read-only, fee-based operation. However, it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, rate limits, or other side effects, which would be helpful for an analysis tool.

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 core purpose and followed by a concise feature list and pricing. Every sentence contributes meaningful information with no redundancy or filler.

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 no output schema, the description partially explains what the user receives by listing the included analyses (security audit, ownership, proxy, verification). However, it does not describe the output format or clarify that the analysisType parameter supports more types than those listed (e.g., rug_pull_detection, token_analysis). Still, the schema fills in parameter details and the tool is relatively simple.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, such as clarifying how analysisType maps to the listed features (e.g., 'full_audit'). The schema's enum descriptions already handle parameter semantics.

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 tool's function: 'Perform premium security analysis on a smart contract' and enumerates specific components (security audit, ownership analysis, proxy detection, verification status). This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on single aspects like ownership or rug-pull detection.

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 implies usage when a comprehensive security analysis of a smart contract is needed, and the 'premium' qualifier suggests it is a paid/comprehensive option. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., goplus_token_security or check_contract_ownership) or provide exclusions.

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