agentek-eth

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but provides no information about rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination, response format, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation. 'Get' implies read-only, but this isn't explicitly confirmed.

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 that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple data retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information.

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 tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'internal transactions' are (versus regular transactions), doesn't describe the return format, and provides no behavioral context. Given the complexity of blockchain data and multiple similar sibling tools, more context is needed.

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 information beyond what's in the schema. It doesn't explain what 'internal transactions' are, what format the address should be in, or provide context about the two required parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema covers half the 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 clearly states the action ('Get internal transactions') and target resource ('for a specific address'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'getAddressTransactions' or 'getTransactionInternalTransactions', which handle related but different transaction types.

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 multiple sibling tools dealing with transactions (getAddressTransactions, getTransactionInternalTransactions, getAddressTokenTransfers, etc.), there's no indication of what distinguishes internal transactions from other transaction types or when this specific tool is appropriate.

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