verify-contract

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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only says 'Verify' without explaining internal operations (e.g., API call, state changes) or side effects. No mention of permissions, rate limits, or what happens to the input data.

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?

Single sentence of 15 words, directly stating purpose with no filler. Information is front-loaded and every word is necessary.

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?

Lacks information about return values or outcomes (e.g., verification success/failure, transaction hash). Does not explain how to use the result or what happens after verification. For a tool with no output schema and zero annotations, 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about Rootstock and verification but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema's detailed parameter descriptions.

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 ('Verify'), the target ('smart contract on the Rootstock blockchain'), and the method ('using source code and compilation metadata'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like deploy-contract and read-contract.

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 such as deploy-contract or check-transaction. Does not mention prerequisites like having the contract source code or compilation artifacts, nor when not to use it (e.g., if contract is already verified).

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