agentek-eth

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it 'gets' data without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination, or what the return format looks like. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that presumably queries blockchain data.

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 front-loads the essential information. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

For a tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain parameter formats, return values, error conditions, or behavioral constraints. Given the complexity of blockchain data queries and the lack of structured documentation, this leaves too many unknowns.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'for a user' which hints at the 'user' parameter but doesn't explain what format it expects (address, ENS name, etc.) or mention the 'chainId' parameter at all. This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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') and resource ('all Uniswap V3 positions for a user'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'getPositionDetails' or 'getAccountPortfolio', but the specificity of 'Uniswap V3 positions' provides some implicit distinction.

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 like 'getAccountPortfolio' or 'getPositionDetails'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, limitations, or comparison to sibling tools, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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