evmscope

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. Successfully reveals critical behavioral traits: ParaSwap aggregation source, optimal routing algorithm, gas fee inclusion in calculation, and automatic ETH→WETH wrapping logic. Minor gap: doesn't explicitly state this is a read-only simulation (no transaction execution) or quote expiration behavior.

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?

Single efficient sentence with parenthetical elaboration. Main clause establishes core function; parentheses pack four distinct behavioral details (ParaSwap, optimal route, gas inclusion, ETH-WETH handling) without redundancy. Every element earns its place.

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 100% schema coverage and no output schema, description adequately covers input requirements and calculation methodology. Mentions gas inclusion which hints at output composition. Minor deduction: lacks explicit description of return structure (expected fields like outputAmount, slippage, route details) that would complete the contract for a quote 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% (all 4 parameters fully documented with types and descriptions). The description mentions ETH→WETH auto-conversion which provides context for tokenIn/tokenOut parameters, but does not elaborate beyond what the schema already explicitly defines. Baseline 3 appropriate given schema completeness.

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 uses specific verb '조회합니다' (queries/retrieves) with resource 'DEX 스왑 견적' (DEX swap quote). Distinguishes from siblings like getBridgeRoutes (bridge vs swap) and getTokenPrice (simple price lookup vs full quote with routes). Includes implementation specifics (ParaSwap-based) that clarify scope.

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?

Provides implied usage context through 'DEX 스왑' terminology, distinguishing from bridging or simple price checks. However, lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over getBridgeRoutes for cross-chain transfers or compareGas for gas estimation, and doesn't mention prerequisites like token approval requirements.

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