spraay_contract_read

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

The description says 'Read contract' implying a read-only operation, but annotations have readOnlyHint=false, indicating the tool may have side effects. This is a contradiction. Additionally, while cost is disclosed, the behavioral inconsistency is misleading.

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 short and front-loaded with the purpose and cost. No unnecessary words, though more detail could fit without harming conciseness.

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?

Even with an output schema, the description lacks context about what contract reading entails (e.g., which chain, method meaning). The minimal text leaves ambiguity for an agent to correctly select and invoke this tool.

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 descriptions are minimal ('args parameter', 'chain parameter') and the description adds only 'Provide the listed fields as typed arguments', which does not clarify what each parameter represents. Despite 100% schema coverage, the descriptions are uninformative.

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 (Read contract) and distinguishes from sibling spraay_contract_write. However, it does not differentiate from spraay_explain_contract, which may also involve reading contract data. The verb+resource is specific.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like spraay_explain_contract or spraay_rpc_call. The instruction to 'Provide the listed fields as typed arguments' is basic but does not help with context or exclusions.

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