agentek-eth

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a retrieval operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what format the state changes are in. This is inadequate 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. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for the tool's apparent complexity.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and moderate schema coverage (50%), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'state changes' entail, the return format, error conditions, or behavioral traits like rate limits. For a blockchain data retrieval tool with two parameters, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 doesn't explain what 'state changes' are, how 'txhash' should be formatted, or provide examples. Since schema coverage is moderate, the baseline is 3, but 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 ('state changes that occurred during a transaction'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getTransaction', 'getTransactionInfo', or 'getTransactionSummary', which might retrieve different aspects of transactions.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or compare it to similar sibling tools (e.g., 'getTransaction' or 'getTransactionInfo'), leaving the agent to infer usage 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.