evm_contract_data

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses per-blockchain credit costs and warns that credits are indicative, but 'Get' only implies a read-only operation and there is no mention of auth requirements, rate limits, failure modes, or reversibility. Credit disclosure is real added value without covering the rest of the behavioral profile.

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?

Well front-loaded: purpose first, then actions, then valid network combinations, then costs. The bulleted structure is easy to scan and every section is relevant. The credits block is somewhat verbose for its value, keeping it from a top score.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by listing the returned fields for the action. Combined with the network/blockchain constraints and credit costs, an agent has enough to invoke correctly; the main gap is the absence of any error or failure behavior given there are no annotations.

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 baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by mapping which networks belong to which blockchain (e.g., ethereum-classic → mainnet, mordor) and attaching credit costs to the action per blockchain, which the raw enums do not convey.

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 description names a specific verb and resource ('Get EVM contract token details') and enumerates the single supported action with its returned fields (name, symbol, standard, decimals, totalSupply). The 'EVM' qualifier cleanly separates it from the sibling solana_contract_data.

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 blockchain→network mapping and per-action credit table effectively tell the agent which parameter combinations are valid and what each call costs, which implicitly guides usage. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this tool over solana_contract_data or any condition under which it should not be used.

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