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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't mention any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or response format. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it efficient for quick understanding.

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 retrieving contract data, no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation (50% schema coverage), the description is insufficient. It doesn't address what the output includes (e.g., format of source code, ABI structure), error cases, or usage constraints, leaving significant gaps for the agent to navigate.

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 description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. With schema description coverage at 50% (only 'chain' has a description), the 'address' parameter is undocumented in both schema and description. The description doesn't explain what 'address' represents (e.g., contract address) or provide any additional context, so it doesn't compensate for the coverage gap, resulting in a baseline score.

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 tool's purpose: 'Retrieve the source code, ABI and metadata a contract.' It specifies the verb ('Retrieve') and the resources (source code, ABI, metadata), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getCode' or 'getSmartContracts', which might have overlapping functionality, preventing a perfect score.

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 (e.g., 'getCode', 'getSmartContracts', 'getTokenMetadata'), there's no indication of specific contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. This lack of differentiation leaves the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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