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 the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it's safe, has rate limits, requires authentication, or details the return format. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, clearly front-loading the purpose. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, 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 no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation (50% coverage), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, potential errors, or behavioral traits like safety or performance, making it inadequate for a tool with two required parameters in a complex blockchain context.

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%, with the 'chain' parameter well-documented but 'blockNumberOrHash' lacking a description. The tool description doesn't add any parameter details beyond the schema, such as explaining what 'blockNumberOrHash' entails or providing examples. With partial schema coverage, the description doesn't compensate for the gaps, resulting in a baseline score.

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 withdrawals within a specific block' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('withdrawals'), with the scope 'within a specific block' providing context. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'getAddressWithdrawals' or 'getTransaction', which might retrieve withdrawals by address or transaction instead of block.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools such as 'getAddressWithdrawals' or 'getBlockTransactions', leaving the agent to infer usage 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.