agentek-eth

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but only states the basic action without details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or response format. It fails to describe how transfers are retrieved (e.g., time range, token types) or any constraints, leaving significant gaps for a read operation.

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, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with the core action. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter coverage (50%), the description is inadequate. It does not explain return values, behavioral traits, or usage context, making it insufficient for an AI agent to fully understand and invoke the tool correctly in a complex environment with many siblings.

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 additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. It mentions 'address' but gives no context on format or validation. Baseline is 3 as the schema covers half the parameters, but the description does not compensate for the lack of details on 'address'.

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 ('token transfers for a specific address'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'getTokenTransfers' or 'getTransactionTokenTransfers', which might have overlapping or distinct scopes, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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, such as 'getTokenTransfers' or 'getAddressTransactions', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It lacks explicit context for selection among similar tools.

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