get_event_topics

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It does not explain whether the tool returns a single hash or multiple, how the optional 'eventName' parameter affects results, what 'common events' refers to, or the outcome for unsupported event names. This lack of detail leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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, short sentence with no fluff, effectively front-loading the main action. It earns a high score for brevity, but the vague term 'common events' could be clearer without much added length.

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 simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too sparse. It fails to clarify whether omitting 'eventName' returns all hashes, how the topic hash is computed, or the format of the output. A complete description would explain the optional behavior and the meaning of 'common events'.

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 provides a description for the only parameter, 'eventName', covering 100% of schema properties. The description itself adds no extra semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies because the schema already handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 'Get topic hashes for common events' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the tool retrieves event topic hashes. It is not a tautology and conveys the core function. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_event_topic' (singular), leaving ambiguity about the scope or plural version.

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 alternative tools like 'get_event_topic' or 'calculate_event_signature'. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. Only the bare function is stated.

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