trace_theft

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

The description provides significant behavioral details beyond what annotations (none) offer, such as explaining that ERC-20 Transfer logs are attacker-controlled, bridge aggregators write destination into calldata, and TRON accounts are analyzed for relay hops. These insights help the agent understand limitations and inner workings, though side effects or destructive actions are not mentioned.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose sentence but becomes dense and technical in the following sections. Each mode is explained, but the overall length and complexity reduce conciseness. Some sentences are run-on, making the structure less efficient.

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 (5 parameters, no output schema, technical domain), the description is incomplete. It thoroughly explains mode behavior but omits details about other parameters, return values, error conditions, or example usage. The lack of output schema increases the need for description completeness, which is not met.

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?

With schema coverage at 40%, the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It effectively explains the 'mode' parameter's three values (moved, bridge, tron), but fails to describe the remaining parameters (chain, txHash, maxHops) beyond their names. This leaves significant gaps in understanding their formats and roles.

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 tool description clearly states 'Follow stolen funds from the victim's transaction to where the trail dies,' establishing a specific verb (follow) and resource (stolen funds). The description distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing on theft tracing, which contrasts with other sibling tools like 'vet_meme' or 'rug_powers' that serve different investigative 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 implicitly guides usage by detailing three modes (moved, bridge, tron) and their contexts, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, when not to use it, or prerequisites. The usage is implied rather than stated outright.

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