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 what the tool does without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Retrieve'), potential rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what format the internal transactions are returned in. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. It follows best practices for concise tool descriptions.

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 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what constitutes 'internal transactions', what data they contain, how results are structured, or any limitations. Given the complexity of blockchain transaction data and lack of structured documentation, more context is needed for effective use.

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 50% (only 'chain' has a description). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it mentions 'given transaction' which relates to 'txhash' but provides no additional context about hash format, validation, or examples. With moderate schema coverage, the baseline 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate for the undocumented 'txhash' parameter.

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 verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('internal transactions'), specifying they occur 'within a given transaction'. It distinguishes from siblings like getAddressInternalTransactions by focusing on transaction-level rather than address-level data. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with getTransactionRawTrace or getTransactionStateChanges which might provide similar transaction details.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like getAddressInternalTransactions (for address-focused queries) or other transaction detail tools. The description implies usage for internal transactions within a specific transaction but doesn't mention prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases.

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