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 mentions 'filtering and pagination', which hints at query capabilities, but doesn't specify what filtering options exist, pagination limits, rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient to inform safe and effective use.

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 and includes key behavioral hints ('filtering and pagination'). Every element earns its place, making it easy to parse 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 (a read operation with filtering/pagination), lack of annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what data is returned, how filtering works, pagination behavior, or error handling. For a tool in a crowded sibling set, more context is needed to ensure correct usage.

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 description adds no specific details about parameters beyond implying general 'filtering' (which might relate to unspecified parameters not in the schema). It doesn't clarify the 'address' parameter format (e.g., Ethereum address) or explain how filtering/pagination work with the given inputs. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema covers half the parameters, but the description doesn't compensate for the 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 'Get token balances with filtering and pagination' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('token balances'), and specifies additional capabilities ('filtering and pagination'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'getAddressTokenBalances' or 'getAddressInfo', which likely have overlapping functionality in the same domain.

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 many sibling tools related to address data (e.g., 'getAddressTokenBalances', 'getAddressInfo', 'getBalance'), there's no indication of specific use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons. This leaves the agent to guess based on the tool name alone.

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