eth_getTransactionCount

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It details the return value (hex-encoded integer), lists possible errors, and implies a read-only operation. Additional context like rate limits or authentication is absent but not critical for this simple query.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Examples, Errors). It is concise with no redundant information, and each part serves a clear purpose.

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 output schema, the description adequately explains the return format and error conditions. It covers three of four parameters in detail. The missing response_format parameter is a minor gap, but overall completeness is high for this tool's simplicity.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value for address, tag, and network parameters with explanations and examples, but misses the response_format parameter present in the schema. The added examples and defaults justify a 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 it returns the number of transactions from an address (nonce) and explains its use for next nonce determination. This is distinct from sibling tools like eth_getBalance or eth_getBlockByNumber, which serve different purposes.

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 examples and states the tool is for getting nonce values. While it doesn't explicitly say when not to use it, the context of sibling tools and the clear purpose make usage guidance adequate.

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