ucai_generate_abi

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. It adds valuable context by mentioning the method (decompilation, pattern matching, AI-enhanced detection) and the cost ($0.10 per generation). However, it does not mention side effects, limitations, or output format, which would warrant a 5.

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 and resource. It includes the price as a separate concise clause without unnecessary fluff. 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?

The tool has moderate complexity with 4 well-documented parameters, but no output schema is present. The description does not explain the return format or any prerequisites beyond the necessity of an unverified contract. Given the absence of output schema and the lack of explicit alternatives, the description could be more 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 schema covers all parameters with descriptions at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add specific parameter-level guidance beyond what the schema already provides; the mention of 'AI-enhanced interface detection' loosely relates to includeDescriptions but is not explicit.

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 action ('Generate ABI') and the specific resource ('unverified smart contract from bytecode analysis'), distinguishing it from related tools like verify_contract or read_contract. The mention of decompilation and AI-enhanced detection further clarifies the unique purpose.

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 for unverified contracts, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like verify_contract for verified contracts, or read_contract for ABI retrieval. The context is clear but lacks exclusionary guidance.

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