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 only states it 'gets information', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify what information is returned, potential rate limits, error conditions, or data freshness. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this minimal description fails to provide necessary behavioral context for reliable use.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for what it conveys, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool's complexity (2 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what information is returned, how results are structured, or any limitations. For a tool that likely returns varied address data, this leaves too many unknowns for effective use by an agent.

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 description mentions 'a specific address' which aligns with the 'address' parameter, but doesn't explain the 'chain' parameter or what the combination yields. With 50% schema description coverage (only 'chain' has a description), the description adds minimal value beyond the schema. It doesn't compensate for the lack of schema description for 'address' or provide additional context about parameter interactions.

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 states the tool's purpose as 'Get information about a specific address', which clearly indicates it retrieves data (verb 'Get') for an address resource. However, it doesn't specify what type of information (e.g., balance, transactions, metadata) or differentiate from many sibling tools that also get address-related data (e.g., getAddressTransactions, getAddressTokenBalances). This makes it somewhat vague compared to alternatives.

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 numerous sibling tools like getAddressTransactions, getAddressTokenBalances, and getBalance that might overlap in functionality, there's no indication of what makes this tool unique or when it's the appropriate choice. This lack of context leaves the agent guessing.

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