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 states what the tool does but reveals nothing about behavioral traits: no indication of read/write nature, rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, error conditions, or what 'validated' entails operationally. For a query tool with no 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, focused sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose efficiently. Every word earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 2-parameter query tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'blocks validated' means, the return format, time ranges, or any behavioral constraints. With rich sibling tools and blockchain complexity, more context is needed to understand when and how to use this 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?

Schema description coverage is 50% (only 'chain' has a description). The description mentions 'specific address' which aligns with the 'address' parameter but adds no semantic detail beyond the schema's type declaration. It doesn't explain address format requirements or what 'validated' means for the output. With partial schema coverage, the description provides minimal compensatory value.

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 ('Get') and resource ('blocks validated by a specific address'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like getBlock or getAddressTransactions by focusing on validation activity rather than block data or transaction history. However, it doesn't specify what 'validated' means in this context (e.g., mined, attested, approved).

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 many sibling tools for address-related queries (getAddressInfo, getAddressTransactions, etc.), there's no indication of when 'blocks validated' is the appropriate metric versus other address activities. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to similar tools are mentioned.

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