agentek-eth

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it's a 'Get' operation (implying read-only), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core purpose immediately.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (just a count? formatted how?), doesn't cover error cases, and provides minimal context for a tool that likely interacts with blockchain data where chainId specificity matters.

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 1 parameter (chainId) with 0% description coverage. The tool description doesn't mention any parameters or explain what chainId represents (e.g., which blockchain network). With low schema coverage, the description doesn't compensate by adding parameter meaning, but since there's only one parameter, the baseline is adjusted to 3.

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 action ('Get total number') and resource ('Coinchan tokens created'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'coinchanGetCoins' or 'getCoinTokenMetadata', which might retrieve similar token information.

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. With many sibling tools related to tokens and coins (e.g., 'coinchanGetCoins', 'getCoinTokenMetadata', 'getTokenInfo'), there's no indication of when this specific count retrieval is appropriate or what distinguishes it.

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