agentek-eth

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions fetching a 'suggested fee quote' via a REST API, which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but doesn't detail potential rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or the format of the returned quote. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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 with the key action and resource, making it easy to parse and understand quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes essential information.

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 tool with six required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the returned fee quote includes (e.g., breakdown of costs, validity period), how to interpret the result, or any dependencies on external factors like network conditions. This leaves the agent with incomplete context for effective 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all six required parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters or providing examples. 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 action ('fetches a suggested fee quote') and resource ('for a cross-chain asset bridge using the Across Protocol REST API'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getQuote' or 'estimateGasCost', which might also provide pricing information, so it falls short of 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, such as 'getQuote' or other fee estimation tools in the sibling list. It lacks context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.

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