Get logs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Query' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose return shape, default block-range behavior, pagination or limits, or how address filtering interacts with the query. This leaves important behavioral traits unspecified.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; every phrase contributes meaning. It is concise and readable, but the terseness also causes it to omit useful parameter and behavior details, so it stops short of full marks.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must carry substantial context. Given five parameters, a non-trivial topics filter structure, and default values, the description is insufficient for an agent to reliably predict filter encoding, supported address forms, or return value shape.

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 coverage is only 20%, with only chainId described. The description maps 'block range' to fromBlock/toBlock and 'topic filters' to topics, but it does not explain address, the nested topic-array semantics, OR/AND behavior across topic positions, or defaults like fromBlock='latest'. It does not sufficiently compensate for the four undocumented parameters.

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 states a specific verb ('Query') and resource ('indexed logs/events'), and names the key filtering dimensions: block range and topics. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like rpc_get_transaction_receipt or rpc_get_block, which target receipts or blocks rather than queryable logs/events.

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 implies when to use the tool: any log/event lookup with block or topic filters. However, it does not explicitly compare it to rpc_get_transaction_receipt, which also exposes logs, nor does it state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives.

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