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 returns token balances and metadata, which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't address critical aspects like rate limits, error handling (e.g., invalid addresses), data freshness, or pagination for large portfolios. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 core functionality: input (wallet address), action (return), and output (all token balances with metadata). There's no wasted verbiage, and it's front-loaded with essential information, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 (querying all token balances with metadata), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return structure (e.g., list of tokens with balances and metadata details), potential limitations (e.g., only supports certain blockchains), or prerequisites (e.g., address must be on a supported network). For a tool with rich data output, this leaves too much unspecified.

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 description mentions 'Given a wallet address', which aligns with the single 'address' parameter in the schema. However, schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no details about the parameter. The description adds minimal semantics by indicating it's a wallet address, but doesn't specify format (e.g., Ethereum address with 0x prefix), validation, or examples. This is a baseline score given the schema's lack of 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Given a wallet address, return all token balances the account holds, including coin metadata.' It specifies the action (return token balances), resource (account/wallet), and scope (all tokens with metadata). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'getAddressTokenBalances' or 'getBalance', which appear similar, so it doesn't reach the highest clarity level.

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 'getAddressTokenBalances', 'getBalance', and 'getCoinBalance', there's no indication of differences in scope (e.g., all tokens vs. specific tokens) or output format. This leaves the agent to guess based on tool names alone, which is insufficient for effective selection.

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