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 this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't mention any constraints like rate limits, pagination, error conditions, or what the output format looks like (e.g., list structure, fields included). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy.

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 (which can involve pagination, metadata, and varied outputs), no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't address what the tool returns (e.g., NFT IDs, metadata, images), how results are structured, or any limitations, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use it effectively.

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 adds no parameter information beyond what's implied by the name. It doesn't explain what 'address' should be (e.g., Ethereum address format), clarify the chain IDs, or mention any optional parameters. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, resulting in minimal added value over the schema.

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 list of NFTs owned by address' clearly states the verb ('Get list') and resource ('NFTs owned by address'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'getAddressNFTCollections' or 'getNFTMetadata', which could cause confusion about scope or granularity.

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 might overlap (e.g., 'getAddressNFTCollections', 'getNFTMetadata'), the description offers no context about whether this returns raw NFTs, collections, metadata, or filtered results, leaving the agent to guess based on the name alone.

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