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 'Airdrop' implies a write operation that transfers tokens, the description doesn't mention critical aspects like required permissions, whether this is irreversible, gas costs, rate limits, or what happens on failure. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, 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 mutation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., side effects, error handling), parameter guidance, and output expectations. Given the complexity and lack of structured support, the description should provide more comprehensive information to be effective.

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 60% (3 out of 5 parameters have descriptions: recipients, amounts, totalSum), while chainId and coinId lack descriptions. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain what chainId or coinId represent, acceptable values, or relationships between arrays. With moderate schema coverage, the baseline is appropriate.

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 ('Airdrop') and resource ('Coinchan token') with scope ('to multiple addresses'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'intentTransfer' or 'intentCoinchanMake', which might have overlapping functionality, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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 'intentTransfer' (for single transfers) and 'intentCoinchanMake' (for creating tokens), there's no indication of when this batch airdrop tool is preferred or what prerequisites might be needed.

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