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. It mentions 'trending tokens and market data' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as data freshness (e.g., real-time vs. delayed), rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if no trending data is available. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.

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: 'Get trending tokens and market data'. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words. However, it could be more structured by explicitly separating the two components (trending tokens vs. market data) for clarity.

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 implied by 'trending tokens and market data', no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what data is returned (e.g., token list, prices, volumes), how trending is determined, or any limitations. For a tool that likely provides dynamic, multi-faceted data, this lack of detail makes it inadequate for effective use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'chainId' documented as 'Chain Id'. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond this, such as example chain IDs or how the parameter affects the output (e.g., whether it filters results by blockchain). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 trending tokens and market data' states a general purpose but lacks specificity. It mentions 'trending tokens' and 'market data' but doesn't clarify what constitutes 'trending' (e.g., by volume, price change, social activity) or what specific market data is included. It distinguishes somewhat from siblings like 'getTokenInfo' or 'getTokenMetadata' by focusing on trending items rather than individual token details, but the distinction is vague.

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 'getTokenInfo', 'getTokenChart', and 'getCryptoPrice', there's no indication of when this tool is preferred (e.g., for discovering popular tokens vs. detailed analysis). No prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual advice are mentioned.

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