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 adds some context by mentioning 'proper approvals then router call,' hinting at a multi-step process and potential prerequisites (approvals), but lacks details on critical aspects like required permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what the output might look like. This is a moderate effort but leaves significant gaps for a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core action and a key behavioral note ('proper approvals then router call'). It is front-loaded with the main purpose and wastes no words, 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 complexity (9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks essential context such as output format, error conditions, authentication requirements, and detailed behavioral traits. While concise, it doesn't provide enough information for an agent to fully understand how to use this tool effectively in a real-world scenario.

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 56%, indicating moderate documentation in the schema itself. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain the meaning of 'side' or 'slippageBps' in practical terms). Given the coverage level, the baseline is 3, as the description fails to compensate for the gaps in parameter documentation.

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 verb ('swap') and resource ('ERC20 and ERC6909 tokens'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from potential sibling tools like 'getQuote' or 'intentTransfer' that might involve token operations, leaving room for improvement in 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, such as 'getQuote' for price estimation or 'intentTransfer' for simple transfers. It mentions 'proper approvals then router call' as part of the process, but this is more of a behavioral detail than usage context, failing to address when or why an agent should choose this tool over others.

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