agentek-eth

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'pagination support' which is useful context, but fails to describe what the tool returns (format, structure), error conditions, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a list operation and front-loads the core purpose immediately. Every word earns its place.

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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how pagination works, error handling, or provide sufficient parameter guidance. For a data retrieval tool with multiple parameters and no structured output documentation, the description should do more to help an agent understand how to use it 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?

Schema description coverage is only 25% (only the 'chain' parameter has a description), so the description needs to compensate but doesn't. It mentions 'token contract' which maps to the 'tokenContract' parameter, and 'pagination support' which hints at 'page' and 'offset' parameters, but provides no additional semantic context about parameter formats, constraints, or usage beyond what's minimally implied. The description adds some value but doesn't adequately compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 ('List transfers') and target resource ('for a specific token contract'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'getAddressTokenTransfers' or 'getTransactionTokenTransfers', which appear to serve similar purposes but with different scoping parameters.

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 'getAddressTokenTransfers' or 'getTransactionTokenTransfers' from the sibling list. It mentions 'pagination support' which hints at usage for large datasets, but offers no explicit when/when-not criteria or alternative recommendations.

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