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 tool retrieves a receipt, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it requires specific permissions, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this minimal description is insufficient to inform safe and effective use.

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, straightforward sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. However, it's overly concise to the point of under-specification, as it lacks necessary details for a tool with two undocumented parameters and no annotations, but it's not verbose or poorly structured.

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 (a tool with two required parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling tools), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a transaction receipt includes, how parameters are used, or when to choose this over similar tools. For a tool in a crowded namespace with no structured support, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 input schema has two required parameters (hash and chainId) with 0% description coverage, meaning their purposes are undocumented. The description adds no information about these parameters—it doesn't explain what 'hash' refers to (e.g., transaction hash) or what 'chainId' is used for (e.g., blockchain network identifier). This leaves the agent to infer parameter meanings from context, which is inadequate.

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 'Get the receipt of a transaction' clearly states the action (get) and resource (transaction receipt), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what a 'receipt' entails (e.g., confirmation details, gas used, logs) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'getTransaction' or 'getTransactionInfo', which might retrieve similar transaction-related data.

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 that handle transaction data (e.g., getTransaction, getTransactionInfo, getTransactionLogs), there's no indication of what makes this tool unique or when it's preferred, leaving the agent to guess based on the name alone.

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