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 it 'fetches' events without disclosing behavioral traits like rate limits, pagination (though limit parameter exists), authentication needs, data freshness, or error conditions. It mentions optional filtering but doesn't explain default behavior when parameters are omitted.

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 front-loads the core purpose ('Fetch recent swap events') and includes the optional filtering. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 4 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what constitutes a 'swap event', the return format, error handling, or practical usage constraints. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively without additional 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'pool' (mapping to poolId) and 'block range' (mapping to startBlock/endBlock) but doesn't explain the limit parameter or provide format details for any parameters. It adds some meaning but doesn't fully compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions.

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 ('Fetch') and resource ('recent swap events for a given pool'), with optional filtering by block range. It distinguishes from siblings like 'getPool' or 'getTransaction' by focusing specifically on swap events. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar event-fetching tools like 'getAddressLogs' or 'getTransactionLogs'.

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 minimal guidance with 'optionally filtered by block range' but offers no explicit when-to-use advice, no mention of prerequisites, and no alternatives among the many sibling tools. There's no indication of when to choose this over other data-fetching tools in the extensive list.

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