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 states the tool gets a quote, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it requires network calls, has rate limits, returns estimated costs, or provides any error handling details. This leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior beyond the basic action.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 a token swap quote tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain parameter meanings, return values, or behavioral traits, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively in a broader context.

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%, meaning none of the parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no information about what 'tokenIn', 'tokenOut', 'amount', or 'side' mean, their expected formats, or how they interact. For a tool with 4 required parameters, this lack of semantic guidance is a major deficiency.

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 ('Get a quote') and the resource ('for swapping ERC20 and ERC6909 tokens'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from the 'swap' sibling tool, which appears to perform the actual swap operation, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 'swap' or other quote-related tools. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing token addresses or amounts, and doesn't mention any exclusions or specific scenarios for its use.

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