agentek-eth

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the default behavior when chainId is omitted (returns gas price for all supported chains), which is useful context. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what the return format looks like (especially given the formatGwei parameter).

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 perfectly concise with two clear sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second explains the key behavioral nuance regarding the optional parameter. There is zero wasted language or redundancy.

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's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and the chainId parameter's effect but leaves significant gaps: no information about the formatGwei parameter, no output format description, and minimal behavioral context. For a tool that returns potentially complex data (gas prices for multiple chains), more completeness would be helpful.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It explains the chainId parameter's effect (when omitted vs. specified), which adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't mention the formatGwei parameter at all, leaving half of the parameters without semantic context. The description provides partial but incomplete parameter guidance.

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 ('Get') and resource ('current gas price'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'estimateGas' or 'getFeeHistory' by focusing specifically on current gas prices rather than estimates or historical data. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all possible gas-related tools in the sibling list.

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 implied usage guidance by stating 'If chainId is not specified, will return gas price for all supported chains,' which helps understand when to use the optional parameter. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'estimateGas' or 'getFeeHistory,' nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites for usage.

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