List contracts available to callContract / buildContractTransaction

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by explaining that the full ABI is intentionally omitted to keep context small, and provides category details that aid decision-making.

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?

Efficient and well-structured: starts with purpose, then details output contents, mentions omission of ABI and referral to getContractAbi, then lists categories. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 the simple task (listing contracts with one optional filter) and the presence of an output schema, the description fully equips the agent to decide when to call this tool and what to expect. References sibling tool getContractAbi for further needs.

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?

Only one optional parameter (category) with schema coverage 100%. The description goes beyond the schema by listing the enum values and giving examples of contracts within each category (e.g., vebetterdao includes B3TR, VOT3, etc.), which helps the agent understand the parameter's effect.

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 the purpose: list contracts available for use with callContract/buildContractTransaction. Specifies returned fields (registry name, on-chain addresses, fragment counts, address requirement) and differentiates from getContractAbi by noting that full ABI is excluded.

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?

Explains when to use (to see available contracts before using generic tools) and mentions getContractAbi as the tool for full ABI. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but context implies it's for overview, not for fetching ABI.

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