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. While it indicates a read operation ('Get list'), it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or output format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 front-loads the core functionality without unnecessary words. It directly communicates the tool's purpose and grouping feature, making it easy to parse and understand 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 complexity of querying NFTs across blockchains, the lack of annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation (50% coverage), the description is insufficient. It does not address behavioral aspects like response structure, error cases, or usage constraints, leaving the agent with inadequate context for reliable tool invocation.

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 does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the 'address' parameter format (e.g., Ethereum address) or clarifying the 'chain' parameter's enum values. With moderate schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get list of NFTs owned by address, grouped by collection.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('NFTs'), and grouping criteria ('grouped by collection'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getAddressNFTs', which might have different grouping or filtering behavior.

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. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'getAddressNFTs' or 'getNFTMetadata', leaving the agent to infer usage context solely from the tool name and parameters.

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