spraay_explain_contract

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds crucial disclosure of cost ($0.01 USDC), explaining why readOnlyHint is false. It also states 'AI-powered', implying non-deterministic or model-based analysis. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise sentences: first states purpose, second lists capabilities and cost. No wasted words, essential information front-loaded.

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?

Given output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers core functionality and cost. Minor gap: no mention of behavior if contract is not verified or if analysis fails. Still sufficient for single-param tool with high schema coverage.

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 coverage is 100% with a single parameter (address) including pattern and example. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema—cost and analysis nature are general tool info, not parameter-specific. Baseline 3 applies.

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 it performs AI-powered smart contract analysis, listing specific outputs (functions, patterns, security properties) and cost. This distinguishes it from siblings like spraay_contract_read (raw data) and spraay_contract_write (mutations).

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 analyzing verified contracts on Base but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over other contract-related siblings (e.g., spraay_contract_read, spraay_research_*). Usage context is implied but not articulated.

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