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' data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify any behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, though it could be more informative by specifying what 'summary' entails.

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 tool's complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the summary includes, how it differs from other transaction-related tools, or what the output looks like. For a tool with no output schema and partial parameter documentation, more context is needed to make it fully usable.

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%, with the 'chain' parameter well-documented (including enum values and description) but 'txhash' lacking any description. The tool description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain what 'txhash' represents (e.g., a transaction hash string) or provide context for the parameters. Given the partial schema coverage, the description doesn't compensate, 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 'Retrieve a summary of data related to a transaction' clearly states the verb ('retrieve') and resource ('summary of data'), but it's vague about what specific data is included in the summary. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'getTransaction', 'getTransactionInfo', or 'getTransactionReceipt', which likely provide more detailed or different transaction 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 sibling tools like 'getTransaction', 'getTransactionInfo', and 'getTransactionReceipt' available, there's no indication of what makes 'getTransactionSummary' unique—such as whether it provides aggregated data, a high-level overview, or specific summary metrics compared to those other tools.

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