Get Unlock Protocol lock details

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 explicitly states 'read-only' and 'public shape', making clear that the call has no side effects and requires no sensitive access. It also indicates the data is fetched 'from the chain'. It does not describe error behavior or response formatting, but for a simple read operation this is adequate.

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?

One tight sentence that leads with the verb, states the read-only nature, and uses a coherent colon-separated list of the lock attributes. No ffiller or redundant wording.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the read-only behavior, and the specific fields returned. It doesn't mention the network default (though the schema does) or the exact response envelope, but the listed fields sufficiently set expectations. Minor gaps only.

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 100% and both parameters already have descriptions ('Network name (defaults to "base")' and 'Address of the PublicLock contract to read'). The description adds context about the lock fields that the address will resolve to, but it does not fundamentally enhance the meaning of the parameters themselves beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read'), a clear resource ('Unlock Protocol lock's public shape from the chain'), and a precise scope ('read-only') with an explicit list of returned fields (name, symbol, key price/currency, expiration duration, max keys, total keys sold). This clearly differentiates the tool from its siblings, which handle membership checks and key listing.

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 implies its use case: whenever an agent needs a lock's public on-chain details. However, it does not explicitly name when-to-use conditions or mention the sibling tools, so there is no direct guidance on choosing between unlock_get_lock, unlock_check_membership, and unlock_list_keys.

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