get_contracts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explains what the tool does but does not disclose potential behavioral traits such as network calls, caching, rate limits, or authorization requirements. The existence of an output schema mitigates some concern about return format.

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 sentences, no filler, directly conveys the function and scope. Every word contributes meaning.

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?

For a tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description is sufficient. It could slightly expand on what the output contains (e.g., addresses per chain), but the output schema likely covers that. The sibling tools list provides context about available alternatives.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter information beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description meets it.

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 retrieves Pythia contract addresses for on-chain integration and lists all supported chains. It specifies a concrete verb-resource pair and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_feed_value or check_oracle_health.

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 obtaining contract addresses during integration, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The context is clear enough given the simplicity.

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