get_logs_by_topic

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only restates the core function. It does not mention default network behavior (e.g., defaults to BSC), pagination, response format, or the fact that topic0 is required. This is a read-only operation, but the absence of any behavioral context is a notable gap.

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 clear sentence with no filler or redundant information. It is front-loaded with the core action and filter, making it easy to scan.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description only offers a one-line summary. It lacks information on return format, default network, or how topic hashes should be formatted, leaving the agent under-equipped for correct invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value by indicating that 'topic0' is a primary filter, but it does not clarify the roles of topic1/topic2 or other parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Get logs') and the filter criterion ('by event topic hash'), which specifies both the resource and the distinguishing feature. This sets it apart from sibling tools like get_contract_logs or get_erc20_transfers, which focus on other filters or event types.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_contract_logs or get_event_topics. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context hints, leaving the agent to guess the intended use case.

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