evmscope

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and adds valuable behavioral context: exchange deposit/withdrawal direction determination and summary statistics. However, it omits critical safety and operational characteristics (read-only status confirmation, rate limits, data freshness) that agents require when annotations are absent.

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 single-sentence description packs three distinct informational elements (tracking capability, exchange analysis feature, summary statistics) with zero redundancy. The information is front-loaded and every clause contributes unique functional context while maintaining exceptional brevity appropriate for the tool's scope.

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 full input schema coverage but no output schema, the description partially compensates by mentioning return characteristics (summary statistics, direction determinations). However, for a 4-parameter blockchain analysis tool without annotations, it should ideally disclose output structure, pagination behavior, or data freshness to be fully complete.

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 achieves 100% description coverage with clear documentation for all four parameters including token symbols, chain enums, and thresholds. Since the schema fully documents all parameters, the description appropriately relies on this structured documentation without redundancy, meeting the baseline expectation for high-coverage schemas.

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 employs a specific action verb '추적합니다' (tracks) targeting '대규모 토큰 전송' (large-scale token transfers/whale movements), clearly identifying the resource and operation. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like `getTokenTransfers` by specifying unique whale-specific analysis features including exchange deposit/withdrawal direction determination.

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 implies usage scenarios through mention of exchange direction analysis and summary statistics, but lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over `getTokenTransfers` or other monitoring alternatives. No explicit 'when-not-to-use' criteria or sibling comparisons are provided.

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