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 a read operation ('Get'), implying it's likely non-destructive, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., JSON structure). For a tool with no annotations, 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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and to the point, though it could benefit from more detail given the tool's complexity. No structural issues are present.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and moderate schema coverage (50%), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'counters' are, the return format, or behavioral aspects like pagination or errors. For a tool in a crowded sibling set with potential complexity, 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?

Schema description coverage is 50% (only the 'chain' parameter has a description). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain what 'counters' are or how parameters affect them. Since schema coverage is moderate, the baseline is 3, but the description fails to compensate for the undocumented 'address' parameter.

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 counters for a specific address' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('counters for a specific address'), but it's vague about what 'counters' means—it could refer to transaction counts, balance changes, or other metrics. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like getAddressInfo or getAddressTransactions, which might provide overlapping or related data.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like getAddressInfo, getAddressTransactions, and getAddressTokenTransfers that might offer similar or complementary data, the description lacks any context on use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons.

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