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. 'Get statistics' implies a read-only operation, but the description doesn't specify what kind of statistics are returned (network metrics, address metrics, token metrics), the format of the response, whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or any other behavioral characteristics. It's minimally informative for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with one parameter, though it could be more informative while remaining concise. The structure is straightforward but could benefit from front-loading more specific information about what statistics are available.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'statistics' or 'blockchain metrics' actually mean in this context, what format the response takes, or how this tool differs from the many specific data retrieval tools in the sibling list. The agent would struggle to understand when and how to use this tool effectively.

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 mentions 'blockchain metrics' but doesn't explain how the 'chain' parameter relates to what statistics are available. With 100% schema description coverage (the schema fully documents the chain parameter with enum values and description), the description adds minimal value beyond what's already in the structured schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 statistics for various blockchain metrics' states the general purpose (retrieving statistics) but is vague about what specific statistics are available. It mentions 'blockchain metrics' but doesn't specify whether these are network-level stats, address stats, token stats, etc. Compared to sibling tools like getBalance, getTransaction, or getTokenInfo, it's unclear what distinguishes this tool.

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 that retrieve specific blockchain data (getBalance, getTransaction, getTokenInfo, etc.), there's no indication whether this tool provides aggregated/network-level statistics versus address-specific statistics, or when it would be preferred over more specific tools.

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