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. It states 'Retrieve' which implies a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what 'raw trace' entails (e.g., format, depth, or computational cost). 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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, making it efficient and easy to parse, which is ideal for conciseness.

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 transaction tools, no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It lacks details on what 'raw trace' returns, error handling, or usage context, making it incomplete for effective tool selection and invocation.

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), and the description does not add any parameter details beyond what the schema provides. It mentions 'specific transaction' which loosely relates to 'txhash', but no specifics on format or constraints. With low coverage, the description fails to compensate, resulting in minimal added value.

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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('raw trace information for a specific transaction'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like getTransaction, getTransactionInfo, or getTransactionReceipt, which likely provide different types of transaction data, so it lacks sibling distinction.

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), there is no indication of what makes 'raw trace' unique or when it should be preferred, leaving usage unclear.

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