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 historical data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify any behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or error handling. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise with a single phrase 'Get historical gas fee info', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to the purpose, making it efficient and 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 complexity of retrieving historical gas fee data with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects, parameter usage, and expected output format, making it inadequate for an agent to fully understand how to invoke and interpret results from this tool.

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 67%, with two parameters (blockCount, rewardPercentiles) well-described in the schema, while 'chainId' lacks a description. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the relationship between parameters or typical values. Since coverage is moderate, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but it doesn't 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 'Get historical gas fee info' clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('historical gas fee info'), making the purpose understandable. However, it's somewhat vague about what specific fee information is retrieved (e.g., average fees, percentile fees, etc.), and it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'getGasPrice' or 'estimateGasCost', which also relate to gas fees but serve different purposes.

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. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for usage, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'getGasPrice' (for current prices) or 'estimateGasCost' (for future estimates), leaving the agent without clear direction on selection.

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