verify_contract_source

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the operation is a check, implying read-only, but fails to describe error cases, return format when unverified, or any dependencies like API key requirements beyond the schema. The description mentions block explorers but does not elaborate on how verification details are presented or any limitations.

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, compact sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and resource. It contains no fluff or redundant information, earning every word's 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 no output schema, so the description should clarify what 'verification details' includes and how the result is returned, but it does not. It also omits behavior when the contract is not verified or network defaults, though the latter is in the schema. The description is minimal for a 3-parameter tool with no annotations.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema; it merely mentions the concept of block explorers. The apiKey, network, and contractAddress parameters are fully described in the schema itself.

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: 'Check if a contract is verified on block explorers like Etherscan/Basescan and get verification details.' It uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('contract verified on block explorers'), and the mention of verification details distinguishes it from siblings like verify_contract (which likely submits) and is_contract (which checks if address is a contract).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that verify_contract should be used for submitting verification, nor does it note any exclusion criteria. The only implied usage is from the general purpose statement, but it lacks the explicit 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' context needed.

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