agentek-eth

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is to 'retrieve logs,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify any behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or the format/structure of the returned logs. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. Every word contributes directly to stating the tool's purpose, earning its place efficiently.

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 of blockchain data retrieval, no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation (50% schema coverage), the description is inadequate. It lacks details on what 'logs' entail (e.g., event logs, raw data), behavioral aspects, and how it differs from sibling tools, making it incomplete 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?

The schema description coverage is 50% (only the 'chain' parameter has a description), and the description adds no additional parameter semantics. It mentions 'specific transaction' which hints at the 'txhash' parameter, but provides no details on format (e.g., hex string) or constraints. With low schema coverage, the description doesn't compensate enough, resulting in a baseline score.

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 the resource 'logs generated from a specific transaction,' making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'getTransaction' or 'getTransactionInfo,' which might retrieve related transaction data, leaving some ambiguity about its unique role.

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 many sibling tools related to transactions (e.g., getTransaction, getTransactionInfo, getTransactionTokenTransfers), there is no indication of what makes this tool specific for logs, such as whether it returns raw event logs, filtered data, or other details, leaving usage unclear.

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