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. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns cached or real-time data, or what error conditions might occur. For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise at just 6 words, front-loading the core purpose without any unnecessary verbiage. Every word serves a purpose, making it efficient for quick scanning while still conveying the essential action and resource.

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 tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (balance in wei/ether, error formats), doesn't clarify parameter usage, and provides no behavioral context. Given the complexity implied by multiple parameters and the lack of structured documentation, this description leaves too many gaps.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so all 3 parameters are undocumented in structured fields. The description mentions 'address' but doesn't explain what format it expects (checksummed, lowercase, ENS name?), what 'chainId' represents (mainnet vs testnets), or what 'formatEth' does (wei vs ether units). The description adds minimal value beyond the parameter names visible in 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 clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('ETH balance for an address'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'getCoinBalance' or 'getAddressCoinBalanceHistory', which could cause confusion in tool selection.

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 like 'getCoinBalance' or 'getAddressTokenBalances'. There's no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or specific contexts where this tool is preferred over other balance-checking tools in the extensive sibling list.

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