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 it 'fetches' metadata, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't mention potential side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or the format/scope of the returned data. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, 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 that front-loads the purpose and key details. Every word contributes meaning without redundancy, making it appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that fetches metadata. It doesn't explain what 'pools' refers to, the data format, potential limitations, or how errors are handled. In a context with many sibling tools, more guidance 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?

The description mentions 'Given a coin symbol' as the input, which aligns with the single required 'symbol' parameter in the schema. However, with 0% schema description coverage, it doesn't add details like symbol format, case sensitivity, or examples. The baseline is 3 since the schema covers the parameter structure, but the description provides only minimal semantic context.

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 verb ('fetch') and resource ('metadata about a coin'), specifying the type of data returned (name, symbol, total supply, image, pools). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getCoinBalance' or 'getCoinTokenMetadata', which appear to be related but distinct operations.

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 that might overlap (e.g., 'getCoinBalance', 'getCoinTokenMetadata'), there's no indication of prerequisites, context, or exclusions for using this specific metadata-fetching tool.

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