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 implies a read-only fetch operation but doesn't disclose behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or response format. For a financial data tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 front-loads the purpose and lists key data points without waste. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool retrieves, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 2 parameters with full schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It clearly states what data is fetched but lacks details on behavioral traits and usage context. For a tool in a crowded sibling set, it should do more to guide selection and set expectations.

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 100%, with both parameters ('userAddress' and 'chainId') well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying these are needed to fetch user data. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 verb 'fetches' and the resource 'Aave user data', listing specific financial metrics like collateral, debt, borrowing power, and health factor. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getAaveReserveData' or 'getAccountPortfolio', which might overlap in domain.

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 siblings like 'getAaveReserveData' (for reserve-level data) and 'getAccountPortfolio' (possibly broader portfolio info), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for selecting this specific user-data tool.

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