scan_smart_contract

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions a price ('$2.00'), which is useful context about cost. However, it lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is a read-only or mutating operation, rate limits, authentication needs, execution time, or what happens with invalid inputs. For a security analysis tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, followed by structured sections for Args, Returns, and Price. Each sentence earns its place, though the 'Price' line could be integrated more smoothly. No redundant information is present.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage and an output schema (implied by 'Returns'), the description is moderately complete. It covers parameter semantics and return types but lacks behavioral context (e.g., cost implications, error handling). For a tool with no annotations and a price, more details on execution and limitations would improve completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining 'contract_address' as 'The contract address to scan (0x...)' with format hint, and 'chain' as 'Blockchain network' with enumerated options ('ethereum, base, polygon'). This clarifies parameter purposes beyond schema titles. However, it doesn't detail constraints (e.g., address validation) or default behavior for 'chain'.

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 performs 'security analysis on a smart contract' with a specific verb ('Perform security analysis') and resource ('smart contract'). It distinguishes from most siblings (e.g., get_token_price, get_wallet_risk_score) by focusing on contract security rather than pricing or wallet analysis. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'request_smart_contract_audit' which might be a similar sibling.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a contract address), exclusions (e.g., unsupported chains beyond listed options), or comparisons to siblings like 'request_smart_contract_audit'. The 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are informative but don't constitute usage guidelines.

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