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 for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Get') without any information about rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, pagination, error conditions, or what the output looks like (e.g., time-series format). For a tool that likely queries blockchain data, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap, leaving the agent with minimal operational understanding.

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—a single phrase with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. While this brevity contributes to clarity in structure, it comes at the cost of completeness, as noted in other dimensions. Every word earns its place, but the description may be too minimal for effective tool selection.

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, two required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks essential context such as output format, time range defaults, error handling, and differentiation from siblings. The description does not provide enough information for an agent to use the tool confidently or understand its behavior beyond the basic action stated.

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 the 'chain' parameter has a description). The tool description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's implied by the name ('address' and 'by day'). It doesn't clarify parameter meanings, formats (e.g., address validation, date ranges implied by 'by day'), or dependencies. With two required parameters and low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, resulting in inadequate parameter documentation.

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 by day' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('address coin balance history by day'), but lacks specificity about what 'coin' refers to (likely native cryptocurrency vs. tokens) or how the history is structured. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'getAddressCoinBalanceHistory' (without 'by day') or 'getCoinBalance', leaving ambiguity about scope and granularity.

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 related to address balances (e.g., 'getAddressCoinBalanceHistory', 'getCoinBalance', 'getAddressTokenBalances'), there's no indication of when this daily history tool is appropriate, what prerequisites might exist, or when other tools should be preferred. This absence of context makes it difficult for an agent to select correctly among similar options.

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