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 this is a read operation ('Returns'), but does not mention rate limits, error conditions, authentication needs, or what happens if the token ID is invalid. For a tool with 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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without any redundant information. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse.

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 tool has no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation (50% schema coverage), the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, error handling, or behavioral constraints, leaving the agent with inadequate information to use the tool effectively in a complex environment with many sibling tools.

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% (only 'tokenId' has a description). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it does not explain 'chainId' or provide context for 'tokenId' beyond the schema's 'stringified bigint (usually an address)'. With partial schema coverage, the description does not compensate for the undocumented 'chainId' parameter.

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 ('Returns'), the resource ('name, symbol, and URI of a given ERC6909 token ID'), and the source ('from the Coins contract'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'getTokenMetadata' by specifying the exact contract type (ERC6909) and source (Coins contract).

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 'getTokenMetadata' or 'getCoin'. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts where this tool is preferred over others 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.