agentek-eth

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It fails to do so—it doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output entails (e.g., list of contracts, details). The description is too sparse to inform the agent about how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.

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, overly concise phrase that under-specifies the tool's function rather than being efficiently structured. It lacks front-loaded clarity and fails to earn its place with useful details, making it feel incomplete rather than succinct.

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 smart contract retrieval and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'smart contract' refers to, the format of results, or any behavioral aspects like pagination or error handling. For a tool with three parameters and no structured output, more descriptive context is needed to guide 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for 'chain', 'q', and 'language' parameters. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond the schema, such as examples of valid queries or how the language parameter affects results. However, since the schema is well-documented, a 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 smart contract for the query' is tautological—it essentially restates the tool name 'getSmartContracts' without adding meaningful specificity. While it implies retrieving smart contracts based on a query, it lacks details about what 'smart contract' means in this context (e.g., source code, metadata, or deployment info) or how the query operates, making it vague and minimally informative.

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 getCode, getTransaction, or getAddressInfo that might overlap with smart contract data, there is no indication of this tool's specific use case, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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