evmscope

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It partially compensates by listing the specific status values and metrics returned (confirmations, gas usage), but omits operational details such as error handling for invalid hashes, rate limits, or caching 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?

The description is a single efficient sentence that front-loads the action verb and appends return value details in parentheses. There is no redundant text or unnecessary elaboration; every element serves a specific communicative 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (two flat parameters) and lack of output schema, the description adequately compensates by enumerating the key return fields (status, confirmations, gas). It is complete enough for selection, though it could benefit from noting behavior for non-existent transaction hashes.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters (txHash and chain), establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds no supplemental context about parameter semantics, such as the expected format of the transaction hash or implications of the chain default 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?

The description clearly states the tool queries (조회합니다) transaction status and lists specific return fields (pending/success/failed, confirmations, gas usage), which helps define scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like decodeTx or simulateTx, which also interact with transaction data.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as decodeTx (for full transaction details) or simulateTx (for pre-submission validation). There are no prerequisites, conditions, or exclusion criteria mentioned.

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