agentek-eth

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool estimates gas but doesn't explain what 'estimate' entails (e.g., simulation-based, network-dependent, accuracy), potential side effects, error conditions, or output format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with blockchain networks.

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 extremely concise ('Estimate gas for a transaction') with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core function in a single phrase, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 blockchain transaction tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the estimation process, return values, error handling, or how parameters interact, leaving the agent with inadequate context for proper use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate but provides no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'to', 'value', 'data', or 'chainId' represent, their formats (e.g., hex addresses, wei units), or how they affect the gas estimation. This is inadequate for 4 parameters with no schema descriptions.

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 states the tool's purpose ('Estimate gas for a transaction'), which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'estimateGasCost' or 'getGasPrice', leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific tool versus alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'estimateGasCost' or 'getGasPrice'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, offering no help for tool selection.

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