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 the action ('Retrieve') but does not cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, error handling, or the format of returned data. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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 that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-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 of blockchain data retrieval, no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation (50% coverage), the description is insufficient. It fails to address behavioral traits, return values, or usage context, making it inadequate for a tool with two required parameters in this domain.

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-specific details beyond what the schema provides. It mentions 'given transaction' which relates to 'txhash', but offers no additional semantics. With moderate schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 ('all token transfers that occurred within a given transaction'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getTokenTransfers' or 'getAddressTokenTransfers', which might have overlapping functionality, so it misses the highest score.

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, such as sibling tools like 'getTokenTransfers' or 'getTransactionInfo'. It lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios, leaving the agent without clear usage instructions.

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