evmscope

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It specifies the return data points (price in USD, volatility, market cap, volume) and implies real-time data via '현재' (current), but lacks critical context: error behavior for invalid tokens, data freshness/staleness, rate limits, or whether the data is aggregated from specific exchanges.

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, zero waste. Front-loads the subject (token price) and parenthetically clarifies USD currency. Lists four return metrics efficiently without filler, appropriate for the tool's straightforward purpose.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description compensates by explicitly enumerating the four return fields (price, 24h change, market cap, volume). This provides sufficient completeness for a read-only data retrieval tool with simple inputs, though it omits error case descriptions.

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%, documenting that 'token' accepts symbols or contract addresses and 'chain' specifies EVM networks. The description does not add parameter-level semantics (e.g., address format requirements, case sensitivity for symbols), so it meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is comprehensive.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves four specific financial metrics (current USD price, 24h change rate, market cap, trading volume) using the verb '조회합니다' (retrieves/inquires). This specificity distinguishes it from generic siblings like 'getTokenInfo' by implying a focused price/market-data scope, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this versus siblings like 'getTokenInfo' (which may overlap) or 'getPortfolio' (which aggregates prices). No mention of prerequisites, such as requiring an exact token symbol or contract address format.

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