check_contract_security

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, open-world. The description adds valuable context: 'this tool surfaces data; it does NOT pick' and clarifies that 'No dangerous functions detected' is not an endorsement. 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?

The description is moderately concise but includes repetitive emphasis on not using for speculation and an issue reference (#599) that adds noise. Key information is front-loaded, but could be tightened.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so description should describe return format or structure. It lists what is checked but not how results are presented. Missing details on output interpretation for an otherwise complex tool.

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 should compensate by explaining parameters. It mentions 'given contract' but does not elaborate on address format or chain options beyond what the schema provides. The schema itself has constraints but description adds no extra semantic meaning.

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: checking Etherscan verification, proxy pattern, slots, and dangerous admin functions. It specifies the resource (contract) and the actions, distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on balances, transactions, or other operations.

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?

Provides explicit scope ('protocol/contract safety only'), what it does NOT do (no token upside or investment merit), and direct instructions to avoid using clean reports for speculative validation. Even includes refusal guidelines for speculative prompts.

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