search_logs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action ('Search') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, output format, pagination, or error conditions. The description is minimal and lacks critical operational context for a tool with complex filtering.

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 is front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary 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 tool's complexity (involving nested filter objects for event logs), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what event logs are, how results are returned, or any limitations, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and use the tool effectively.

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 fully documents the three parameters (blockchain, filter, network). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'address and topics' (which are part of the filter object), but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Search event logs by address and topics' clearly states the verb ('Search') and resource ('event logs'), specifying the primary filtering criteria ('by address and topics'). It distinguishes from many sibling tools that handle different resources like balances, transactions, or blocks, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar query/search tools like 'search_cosmos_transactions' or 'query_sui_events'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'address and topics' but doesn't explain if this is for Ethereum-style logs, how it differs from other search/query tools in the sibling list, or any prerequisites like blockchain type. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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