explorer_get_event_logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral details such as pagination, ordering, or return format, so it remains at the baseline for a read-only tool with annotations.

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 main action, and contains no filler or redundant information.

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 read-only tool with 8 parameters, the description is adequate but does not describe return values or differentiate from the similarly named explorer_get_event_logs_by_topics. Given the missing output schema and sibling ambiguity, more context would be helpful.

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 all parameters (address, chainId, topic0-3, startBlock, endBlock) are already documented. The description's mention of 'topics and block range' summarizes schema content but adds no new semantic information.

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 retrieves event logs emitted by a specific contract address, with optional filtering by topics and block range. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like explorer_get_event_logs_by_topics by emphasizing the address-specific scope.

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 when to use it—for event logs from a specific contract with optional filters—but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The context is clear but exclusions are absent.

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