evm_address_latest

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses the 14-day data window, the cursor pagination contract (nextStartingAfter -> startingAfter), per-action credit costs, and the fact that actual credits appear in response headers. It omits auth/permission requirements and failure behavior, but the cost and pagination disclosures are genuinely valuable.

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 core purpose and pagination contract are front-loaded in the first two sentences, and the bulky detail is compressed into readable bullet tables. The credit table is long and explicitly flagged as indicative and volatile, but it is decision-relevant cost data rather than filler.

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?

For an 8-parameter composite read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: valid combinations per action, pagination, and cost. It does not describe return shapes per action, but for read-only query actions with a response-header cost signal, an agent has enough to invoke correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value the schema cannot: the valid action-to-blockchain and blockchain-to-network combinations, which the flat enums do not express. It also restates the pagination cursor usage, reinforcing the schema description.

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?

States a specific verb (Query) and resource (latest EVM address data) with an explicit scope of last 14 days, then enumerates the five concrete actions. The 'EVM' qualifier cleanly separates it from the sibling utxo/solana/xrp/kaspa address tools.

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 action/blockchain/network matrices implicitly constrain valid usage, which is helpful routing information. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no direct differentiation from the sibling *_address_latest tools beyond the blockchain family.

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