verify_contract

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions submitting to external block explorers, but does not elaborate on the verification process, potential side effects, required API key usage, response time, or failure modes. This is a significant gap for a tool that performs a network submission.

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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's primary action. No unnecessary words or redundancy—exemplary clarity and structure.

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?

Despite the complex schema (11 parameters, 5 required) and no output schema, the description offers minimal context. It does not explain what the response contains, how to handle multi-file source code, or what happens after submission. This is insufficient for a tool of this complexity, making the description 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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all 11 parameters, so the schema already documents parameters well. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, aligning with the baseline score of 3.

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: submitting contract source code for verification on block explorers. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the mention of 'Etherscan, Basescan, etc.' gives context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'verify_contract_source', so it isn't a perfect 5.

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 verifying contract source code on block explorers, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'verify_contract_source'. There are no stated exclusions or alternative tool references, making the guidance adequate but not thorough.

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