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. While it mentions the analysis involves 'historical yield performance' and specific metrics, it does not describe key behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, data freshness, or the format of the output (e.g., structured comparison, charts). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and scope without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Compares historical yield performance') and includes key details ('across multiple pools, analyzing metrics like APY, volatility, and TVL trends'), making it highly concise and effective.

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 (historical analysis with multiple metrics), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It outlines what the tool does but falls short in explaining behavioral aspects, output format, or integration with sibling tools. While it covers the basic purpose, it does not provide enough context for an agent to fully understand the tool's operation and limitations in this environment.

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 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for each parameter (poolIds, days, sortBy). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the tool uses these parameters for comparison, but it does not provide additional context like how the metrics are calculated or what 'volatility' and 'stability' entail. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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: 'Compares historical yield performance across multiple pools, analyzing metrics like APY, volatility, and TVL trends.' It specifies the verb ('compares'), resource ('historical yield performance across multiple pools'), and scope ('analyzing metrics like APY, volatility, and TVL trends'), which is specific and informative. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'compareYieldTool' or other analysis tools, preventing a score of 5.

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 pool IDs from other tools, or when to choose it over similar tools like 'compareYieldTool' or 'getYieldHistoryTool' in the sibling list. This lack of contextual direction leaves the agent without clear usage instructions.

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