agentek-eth

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it's a read operation ('Gets'). It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, rate limits, error conditions, or what format the allowance is returned in (e.g., raw amount vs formatted). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 uses precise terminology ('ERC20 token allowance'). Every word earns its place.

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 read-only tool with full schema coverage but no output schema or annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose clearly but lacks behavioral context and usage guidance. Given the complexity of blockchain allowance queries, more completeness would be helpful.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the relationship between owner and spender or chainId behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Gets') and resource ('ERC20 token allowance between an owner and spender'), distinguishing it from siblings like getBalance, getTokenInfo, or intentApprove. It precisely identifies the exact blockchain concept being queried.

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 like getTokenInfo or getBalanceOf, nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing valid Ethereum addresses. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.

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