get_contract_state

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly indicates the operation is a read (non-destructive), but it does not mention any potential side effects, access requirements, or limitations (e.g., whether the tool is callable without authentication). It also does not describe the return format or behavior when a target_address is supplied, which is a minor gap for a read tool.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the primary purpose and then elaborating on accepted inputs. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 description covers the essential context: what the tool does, what inputs it accepts, and its scope ('any Dysnomia contract'). Given the simple parameter structure (one required, one optional) and the absence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It could mention the return shape, but the stated purpose implies a state snapshot, so it is adequate.

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 both parameters (contract and target_address) are already documented in the schema. The description adds a minor clarification by noting that contract can be a name or raw address, but it does not provide any additional semantics beyond what the schema already states. The baseline of 3 applies since the schema carries the load.

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 function: reading current on-chain state (balances, supply, ownership, minting status) of any Dysnomia contract. It specifies the verb 'Read' and the resource, and distinguishes it from siblings like debug_call or trace_minter by focusing on state reading rather than execution or tracing.

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 does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where a sibling tool would be more appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the general 'read' intent.

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