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 logs' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify what 'logs' include (e.g., transaction logs, event logs), whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output format looks like. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the key information ('Get logs for a specific address').

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 inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'logs' are, their format, or any behavioral aspects like error handling or limitations. Given the complexity of blockchain data retrieval and lack of structured documentation, 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 'chain' has a description), and the description doesn't add any parameter details beyond what's in the schema. It mentions 'address' but doesn't explain what type of address (e.g., Ethereum address format) or provide context for the 'chain' parameter. With moderate schema coverage, this meets the baseline but doesn't compensate for gaps.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'logs for a specific address', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'getAddressTransactions' or 'getAddressTokenTransfers' that might also retrieve address-related data, preventing a perfect score.

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 that retrieve address data (e.g., getAddressTransactions, getAddressTokenTransfers), the description lacks any context about what makes 'logs' distinct 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.