evm_utils

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does add genuinely useful non-schema behavior: per-action/per-chain credit costs, a disclaimer that costs are indicative, and the fact that actual credits are returned in response headers. However it says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or the read-only nature of these operations.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by clearly labeled bullet sections for actions, chain/network mapping, and credits. The credit block is long but earns its place as cost information; nothing is redundant padding.

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?

Covers purpose, actions, supported chain/network combinations, and cost for a 6-parameter multi-action tool with no annotations. But there is no output schema, and the description never indicates what validate-address or decode-raw-transaction return (boolean vs object), which leaves an interpretation gap for an agent.

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 description coverage is 100%, so a 3 is the baseline, but the description goes beyond the schema by mapping which networks belong to which blockchain (e.g. tron -> mainnet/nile, ethereum-classic -> mainnet/mordor). That constraint cannot be expressed by the two flat enums, so it adds real selection value.

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 specific verbs and resources ('validate address', 'decode raw transaction hex') and explicitly enumerates both actions with one-line glosses. The EVM scope plus the supported blockchain list cleanly separates it from the chain-family siblings utxo_utils and xrp_utils without needing to name them.

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 list and the per-action credit table implicitly tell the agent which action to pick and which chains each action supports, but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no routing statement relative to the sibling utils tools. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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