agentek-eth

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While it states what the tool does, it lacks behavioral details like whether this is a real-time or cached price, rate limits, error conditions, data source reliability, or what happens with invalid symbols. For a financial data tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 core functionality without waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential information.

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 single-parameter read operation with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks important context about data freshness, sources, error handling, and how it differs from similar sibling tools. The absence of annotations and output schema means the description should do more to compensate.

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 100% description coverage for its single parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying the output unit ('in USD'), which isn't in the schema. However, it doesn't provide additional context about parameter usage beyond what the schema already documents thoroughly.

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 ('Get'), resource ('current price of a cryptocurrency'), and unit ('in USD'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'getBalance' or 'getTokenInfo' by focusing exclusively on price retrieval rather than balances, metadata, or other cryptocurrency data.

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 like 'getCoin', 'getTokenInfo', or 'getTokenChart' that might also provide price data, there's no indication of when this specific price-fetching tool is preferred or what distinguishes it from other data retrieval tools.

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