get_events_guide

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It transparently discloses the tool returns a contract that approves LINK, subscribes, listens for events, and can cancel. It implies read-only behavior (returning code) but could explicitly note no side effects.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. First sentence states primary purpose, second elaborates on contract contents. Front-loaded and 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 and presence of an output schema (not shown), description adequately explains the returned contract's capabilities. Missing details on how to use the code, but sufficient for a code generation tool.

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?

No parameters, so baseline of 4 applies. Description adds value by detailing the contract's functionality, compensating for absence of param info.

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 'Get Solidity code to subscribe to Pythia Events', specifying a verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_events_info (info about events) and get_integration_guide (general guide) by focusing on code generation for subscriptions.

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?

Description provides clear context of use (when you need a subscription contract), but lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives to other guide tools. It implies usage but could be more directive.

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