evmscope

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It adds temporal scope ('최근' / recent) and hints at return structure (deposits/withdrawals, token name, quantity). However, it lacks disclosure on pagination behavior, data freshness/caching, rate limits, or API key requirements that would be essential for a blockchain data tool without safety annotations.

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 redundancy. Front-loaded with action verb and resource, parenthetical details provide precise return field documentation without verbosity. Every element earns its place in a compact Korean sentence structure.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description compensates by listing return fields (deposits/withdrawals, token name, quantity). Missing details on pagination (despite limit parameter hinting at it) and data source freshness prevent a 5, but the essential contract is clear.

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% (address, chain, limit all documented). The description implies the address parameter context ('지갑 주소의' / of wallet address) but does not add syntax details, validation rules, or usage examples beyond the schema. With complete schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses specific verb '조회합니다' (retrieves/queries) with clear resource scope: 'ERC-20 토큰 전송 내역' (ERC-20 token transfer history). It distinguishes from siblings like getBalance (current state) by specifying historical transfers with directionality (입금/출금 deposits/withdrawals), and from getTokenInfo (metadata) by focusing on transaction history. The parenthetical details (token name, quantity) clarify the data fields returned.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or alternative naming. While 'ERC-20' implicitly distinguishes from NFTs (getNFTInfo) and native currency, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over getPortfolio (aggregated balances) or getTxStatus (specific transaction lookup). Usage is implied by the description but lacks explicit decision criteria.

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