get_recent_events

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 merely restates the tool's function and offers no insight into return format, ordering, pagination, rate limits, or potential side effects. The 'monitoring' hint is the only extra context, but it doesn't describe behavior.

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 concise sentence with no filler or redundancy, achieving good front-loading of the core action. However, it is under-specified for such a complex tool, which slightly reduces the score from 5 to 4.

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 four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must compensate and explain return values, how to specify events, and default behavior. The current description leaves significant gaps, such as what kind of events are returned, how eventSignature works, and the meaning of 'recent', making it incomplete for practical use.

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 semantic value beyond the schema—it only relates 'N blocks' to the blocksBack parameter. It doesn't explain how the parameters interact (e.g., contractAddress + eventSignature), but the schema descriptions already cover each field.

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?

Description clearly states the tool fetches recent events within a block range, with a specific verb ('Get') and scope ('last N blocks'). However, it doesn't mention contract address or event signature, which are required parameters, and doesn't distinguish itself from similar event/log tools like get_contract_logs or get_logs_by_topic, so it loses a point.

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 only adds 'for monitoring' as a vague use case and provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, nor any mention of alternative tools.

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