evmscope

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden. It implies a read-only operation via '조회합니다' (retrieves) and lists return fields, but omits error handling (e.g., invalid token), rate limits, or whether historical vs current data is returned.

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 sentence with zero waste. Front-loaded with the specific resource (ERC-20 metadata) and action, followed by parenthetical field enumeration. 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?

For a 2-parameter read operation with no output schema, the description adequately compensates by listing the four return value fields. However, it lacks error behavior details that would be expected given the complexity of blockchain address resolution.

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% for both parameters (token, chain), establishing a baseline of 3. The description mentions ERC-20 which adds context to the 'token' parameter, but doesn't expand on input formats or the 'chain' enum beyond the schema definitions.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves ERC-20 token metadata with specific fields (name, symbol, decimals, total supply) and uses a specific verb (조회합니다/retrieves). However, it lacks explicit differentiation from siblings like getTokenPrice or getNFTInfo, which handle different aspects of tokens.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., getTokenPrice for pricing, getBalance for holdings) or prerequisites. Users must infer from the parameter descriptions alone.

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