agentek-eth

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic operation. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Gets' but not explicit), potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error responses, or what metadata fields are returned. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes the two primary parameters. Every word earns its place without being overly terse.

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 read operation with 3 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it doesn't explain what 'metadata' includes (attributes, image URL, etc.) or provide context about the NFT ecosystem. With no annotations and no output schema, the agent has incomplete information about what the tool actually returns.

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 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description mentions contractAddress and tokenId but omits chainId, adding minimal value beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description could have better explained the relationship between parameters.

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 ('Gets metadata') and target resource ('for an NFT token'), specifying it's by contract address and token ID. It distinguishes from similar tools like getTokenMetadata or getAddressNFTs by focusing on individual NFT metadata rather than token-level metadata or address-level NFT collections. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the chain ID parameter which is also required.

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 like getTokenMetadata (for fungible tokens) or getAddressNFTs (for all NFTs at an address). It doesn't mention prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases. The agent must infer usage from the parameter names alone.

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