agentek-eth

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Get details about a transaction' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify what details are returned, whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or how it differs from other transaction tools. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 at just one sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness.

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 (2 required parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to interpret parameters, or how it differs from similar tools. For a tool that likely queries blockchain transactions, more context about return format, error handling, and differentiation from siblings is needed.

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%, meaning neither parameter (hash, chainId) has descriptions in the schema. The tool description provides no additional information about what these parameters mean, their expected formats, or examples. For instance, it doesn't clarify if 'hash' is a transaction hash, what 'chainId' represents, or valid values for either.

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 ('Get details') and resource ('about a transaction'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from similar sibling tools like 'getTransactionInfo', 'getTransactionSummary', or 'getTransactionReceipt', which all appear to retrieve transaction-related information.

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 multiple transaction-related tools in the sibling list (e.g., getTransactionInfo, getTransactionSummary, getTransactionReceipt), there's no indication of what distinguishes this tool from those or when it should be preferred.

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