spraay_contract_write

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (write operation) and openWorldHint=true, plus description adds a cost of $0.01 USDC per call. However, it does not disclose side effects like gas costs on certain chains, required auth, or irreversible changes. The minimal addition beyond annotations merits a 3.

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?

Two brief sentences that include the core action, cost, and a parameter instruction. No fluff, but could be organized better (e.g., listing parameters in the description itself).

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?

With 5 parameters, an output schema, and many sibling tools, the description lacks crucial context. It does not clarify what 'write' means (e.g., on-chain transaction vs internal record), how the output schema relates, or any dependencies like wallet funding. The description is too sparse for an agent to reliably use.

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 tautological (e.g., 'args parameter', 'chain parameter') and the description only says to provide fields as typed arguments, adding no meaning. For 5 parameters with a write operation, more semantic detail (e.g., what 'args' entails, chain ID format) is needed.

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 states 'Write contract' which is a verb+resource pairing that distinguishes it from the sibling spraay_contract_read. However, it does not specify what kind of contract (smart contract, legal contract, etc.) or the exact scope of writing (e.g., deploying or invoking).

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives, such as when to use spraay_contract_read vs write. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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