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 'Get address coin balance history' but reveals nothing about the tool's behavior: no information on rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, pagination, error conditions, or what the output looks like (e.g., time-series format, date ranges, or units). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 with just four words, making it front-loaded and free of unnecessary information. Every word contributes directly to the core purpose, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness. There's no wasted language or structural issues.

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 complexity of blockchain data queries, no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage (50%), the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'coin balance history' entails, how results are structured, any limitations, or how it differs from similar tools. For a tool that likely returns time-series financial data, this lack of context makes it inadequate 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 2 parameters with 50% description coverage (only 'chain' has a description). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain what 'address' should be (e.g., Ethereum address format), doesn't clarify the meaning of 'coin balance history' in relation to parameters, and doesn't address any optional behaviors like date ranges or granularity. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for undocumented parameters.

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 'Get address coin balance history' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name with minor grammatical changes. It specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'address coin balance history', but doesn't clarify what 'coin balance history' means (e.g., time-series data, transaction-based changes, or periodic snapshots). It also fails to distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'getAddressCoinBalanceHistoryByDay' or 'getCoinBalance', leaving the scope ambiguous.

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. It doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. With sibling tools like 'getAddressCoinBalanceHistoryByDay' (likely for daily granularity) and 'getCoinBalance' (likely for current balance), there's no indication of how this tool differs or when it's the appropriate choice.

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