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. It mentions ordering and default behavior, but lacks critical details like pagination handling (implied by limit/offset but not explained), rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what the output looks like (no output schema). This is insufficient for a tool with 3 parameters and 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information or fluff.

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 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter meanings, output format, error handling, or behavioral constraints, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use this tool effectively.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies 'coinId' is required to specify the coin, and mentions ordering which relates to the output, but doesn't explain what 'coinId' represents, the purpose of 'limit' and 'offset', or their interaction. The description adds minimal value beyond the bare schema.

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 action ('Fetch') and resource ('list of holders for a given coin'), with specific ordering ('ordered by balance descending by default'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'getNativeCoinHolders' or 'getTokenHolders', which might serve similar purposes for different asset types.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'getNativeCoinHolders' or 'getTokenHolders' from the sibling list. The description implies it's for coins, but doesn't clarify if this is for native coins, tokens, or specific types, leaving usage context ambiguous.

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