check_contract_security

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description reinforces that it 'surfaces data; it does NOT pick.' Adds context about the meaning of 'no dangerous functions' and agent behavior refusal. No contradiction 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?

Description is long and includes repetitive warnings and issue references. While informative, it could be more concise. Essential information is present but padded with redundant instructions.

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?

No output schema is provided, yet the description does not explain the output format or structure. For a complex analysis tool, agents need to know what findings are returned. Parameter semantics are also incomplete, leaving gaps in understanding.

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 0%, so description must compensate. The description only vaguely alludes to 'a given contract' but does not explain the address or chain parameters. Missing explicit descriptions of parameter purpose, formats, or constraints beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Clearly states it checks Etherscan verification, proxy patterns, and dangerous admin functions. Distinguishes from unrelated tools by explicitly stating what it does NOT measure (token upside, price direction, investment merit). Provides a specific SCOPE: 'protocol/contract safety only'.

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?

Explicitly says to use for due diligence on contract safety. Instructs agents not to use clean security reports as token-pick validation and to refuse speculative prompts. Provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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