contract_verified

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses pricing and API source but does not specify read-only nature, side effects, permissions, rate limits, or error behaviors. Critical behavioral traits are missing.

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 extremely short (one line) and includes pricing and API URL. It is concise but lacks essential information; it could be restructured to include purpose and behavior first.

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 tool's complexity (contract verification), the description lacks critical context such as what the output looks like, whether it verifies against source code or ABI, and how to interpret results. The input schema is fully described, but without output schema or behavioral notes, completeness is low.

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 (address and chain) are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what's in the schema, so a baseline score of 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?

The description states '[Blockchain] 合约验证查询' which indicates a contract verification query, but uses a noun phrase rather than a clear verb+resource. It is somewhat clear but lacks explicit action. Among many blockchain siblings, it distinguishes as a verification tool, but the purpose could be more precise.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide criteria for when not to use it. The agent receives no guidance on context.

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