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. While 'Get' implies a read operation, it doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects: whether this requires API keys/authentication, rate limits, what format the count is returned in (integer, string), whether it's real-time or cached data, or error conditions. For a blockchain query tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple query tool and front-loads the core functionality without 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 blockchain query tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (just a count number? with metadata?), doesn't clarify parameter semantics, and provides no behavioral context. Given the complexity of blockchain APIs and the lack of structured documentation, the description should do more to compensate.

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 description must compensate but doesn't. It mentions 'address' but doesn't explain format requirements (checksum, case sensitivity) or provide examples. The 'chainId' parameter isn't mentioned at all, leaving users guessing about its purpose and required values. With 2 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description adds minimal value beyond what's obvious from the tool name.

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') and resource ('number of transactions sent from an address'), providing specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from many sibling tools that handle different blockchain data (e.g., getBalance, getTransaction, getAddressTransactions), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from getAddressCounters which might include transaction counts.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for address-related data (getAddressTransactions, getAddressCounters, getAddressInfo), the description doesn't indicate whether this is a specialized count-only endpoint, when it's preferable to other transaction query tools, or any prerequisites for use.

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