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 provides minimal behavioral information. It states this is a read operation ('fetches'), but doesn't disclose rate limits, data freshness, error conditions, authentication requirements, or what format the information is returned in. The description doesn't contradict any annotations since none exist.

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 that communicates the essential information without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool and front-loads the key 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what format the information is returned in, what specific data fields are included beyond 'balance and tx count', or any limitations of the data. Given the complexity of blockchain data retrieval and the lack of structured output documentation, more context is needed.

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% with the single parameter 'address' well-documented. The description adds context about what type of address ('Bitcoin address') but doesn't provide additional semantic information beyond what the schema already states. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('fetches information') and resource ('Bitcoin address'), specifying the type of information retrieved ('balance and tx count'). It distinguishes from many siblings by focusing on Bitcoin addresses, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'getAddressInfo' which appears to be a more general version.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'getAddressInfo' or 'getBalance'. The description implies Bitcoin-specific functionality, but doesn't explicitly state this as a distinguishing factor or mention any prerequisites or constraints.

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