agentek-eth

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool checks for malicious associations but does not describe what constitutes 'malicious activity', how the check is performed (e.g., database lookup, API call), or the response format (e.g., boolean, risk score). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and output.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, making it easy to understand quickly. There is no wasted verbiage, and it avoids 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 complexity of checking for malicious activity and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., true/false, risk details), potential errors, or limitations (e.g., coverage scope, data freshness). For a security-related tool with no structured context, more detail is needed to ensure proper usage.

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?

The input schema has one parameter ('address') with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic details. The description implies the parameter is an Ethereum address but does not specify format requirements (e.g., checksum, length) or validation rules. It adds minimal value beyond the schema's structural definition, resulting in a baseline score due to incomplete parameter documentation.

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 purpose: 'Check if an Ethereum address has been associated with malicious activity.' It specifies the verb ('check') and resource ('Ethereum address'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'checkMaliciousWebsite' or 'getAddressInfo', which might provide related but different functionality.

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 prerequisites, such as needing a valid Ethereum address format, or exclusions, like not working for non-Ethereum addresses. With many sibling tools available (e.g., 'getAddressInfo', 'checkMaliciousWebsite'), the lack of comparative context leaves usage unclear.

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