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. While 'fetches and analyzes' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't clarify data freshness, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'analyzes' entails (e.g., returns processed statistics vs raw data). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 core purpose. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating fetching from analysis aspects. Every word earns its place, making it appropriately concise.

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 a tool that performs analysis (implying processed output), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the analysis includes, the return format, or error conditions. For a tool with 'analyzes' in its purpose and lacking structured output documentation, this leaves too many unknowns for effective use.

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 100%, with clear documentation for both parameters (poolId and days). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as example pool IDs or analysis specifics. With high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('fetches and analyzes historical yield data') and the resource ('for a specific pool from DefiLlama'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'getYieldTool' (which likely fetches current yield data) or 'compareYieldHistoryTool' (which likely compares multiple pools), missing full sibling 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'getYieldTool' or 'compareYieldHistoryTool'. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent without contextual usage instructions.

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