agentek-eth

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a read operation ('Gets information'), which implies it's non-destructive, but it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what specific information is returned. This is a significant gap 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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what information is returned, how to interpret results, or address potential issues like invalid addresses or network errors, making it inadequate for reliable tool 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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'Uniswap V3 pool' which hints at the 'poolAddress' parameter, but it doesn't explain what 'poolAddress' or 'chainId' mean, their formats, or provide any examples. This leaves both parameters poorly documented beyond their basic types.

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 ('Gets information') and resource ('about a Uniswap V3 pool'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'getPool' or 'getPoolFeeData', which appear to be related pool information tools, 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. With sibling tools like 'getPool' and 'getPoolFeeData' that might overlap in functionality, there's no indication of what makes this tool unique or when it should be preferred, leaving usage ambiguous.

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