agentek-eth

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Creates an intent,' implying a preparatory or non-immediate action, but fails to detail critical aspects like whether this requires authentication, has side effects, involves rate limits, or what the output entails (e.g., a transaction hash or intent ID). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly while conveying the essential action.

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 a token transfer tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., mutability, error handling), output expectations, and differentiation from siblings. For a tool that likely involves blockchain interactions, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage by an AI agent.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all parameters (token, amount, from, to, chainId). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, indicating adequate but not enhanced parameter understanding.

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 ('Creates an intent to transfer tokens') and specifies the resource ('from another address'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'intentTransfer' or 'intentTransferPosition', which might handle similar token transfers but with different contexts or parameters, leaving room for ambiguity.

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, such as 'intentTransfer' or other intent-related tools in the sibling list. It lacks context about prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based solely on the tool name and parameters.

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