invoke_contract

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

The description states it is read-only and non-broadcasting, clarifying it is non-destructive. However, with no annotations provided, it fails to disclose other behavioral aspects like error handling, result structure, or limits. The read-only trait is the key behavioral detail, earning 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?

A single concise sentence conveys the core purpose with no redundancy. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate lines for key details) without losing brevity.

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 the complexity of 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain how to use multiple contract identifiers, expected output format, or error conditions. For a tool of this complexity, more context is needed.

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%, so the descriptions in the schema already document all parameters. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose: performing a read-only contract invocation without signing or broadcasting. This precisely distinguishes it from other tools like estimate_invoke_fees or get_contract_info.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it explain which parameter among the multiple contract identifiers (contract, nameOrHash, scriptHash, contractName) should be used in different scenarios. Required parameter 'operation' is mentioned in schema but not in description context.

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