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. It mentions the outcome ('receive xNANI tokens') but lacks critical details such as permission requirements, transaction costs, rate limits, irreversible effects, or response format. For a financial transaction tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 action and outcome with zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, 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?

Given the tool's complexity (a financial transaction with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address behavioral aspects like safety, costs, or response format, leaving gaps that could hinder an AI agent's correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('amount' and 'chainId') adequately. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., units for 'amount', specific chain IDs for 'chainId'), resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 ('Stake NANI tokens') and outcome ('receive xNANI tokens, which can be used for governance'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'intentUnstakeNani' or other staking-related tools, which prevents a perfect 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 (e.g., 'intentUnstakeNani' or other staking/intent tools), nor does it mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context for usage. It merely states what the tool does without operational context.

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