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 compares yield opportunities but doesn't explain what 'compares' entails—e.g., whether it returns data in a specific format, if it's a read-only operation, potential rate limits, or error conditions. For a tool with no annotations, 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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 (comparing yield opportunities across protocols), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the comparison outputs (e.g., a list, table, or metrics), how results are structured, or any behavioral aspects like data freshness or limitations. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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, clearly documenting all parameters ('assets', 'amount', 'duration') with examples and constraints. The description adds no additional semantic information beyond the schema, such as explaining how 'assets' relate to protocols or what 'yield opportunities' means in practice. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 yield opportunities for specific assets across different protocols.' It specifies the verb ('compares'), resource ('yield opportunities'), and scope ('specific assets across different protocols'), making the function evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getYieldTool' or 'compareYieldHistoryTool', which might have overlapping or related purposes, so it doesn't achieve a perfect score.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'getYieldTool' or 'compareYieldHistoryTool', leaving the agent to infer usage context. This lack of explicit guidance reduces its effectiveness in tool selection.

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