evmscope

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what classifications the tool provides (exchange, DeFi, whale, contract/EOA), but lacks operational details like data source (on-chain vs off-chain), handling of unknown addresses, or whether classifications are exclusive or ranked.

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?

Extremely concise single sentence with parenthetical elaboration. Front-loaded with action verb, zero redundancy, no filler. Korean text is efficient and every character 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 tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the core classification value proposition. However, given no output schema exists, it could benefit from mentioning what form classifications take (labels, categories, confidence scores) to help the agent consume the result.

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% with clear descriptions for both parameters ('Ethereum address (0x...)', 'Chain (ethereum, polygon...)'). The description adds no additional parameter guidance (e.g., address format validation, case sensitivity, or chain selection rationale), meriting the baseline score for high schema coverage.

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?

States specific action (식별/identify) and target resource (주소/address) with concrete classification categories (exchanges, DeFi protocols, whale wallets, contract/EOA). Clearly distinguishes from siblings like getBalance, resolveENS, or getTokenInfo by focusing on entity classification rather than balances, name resolution, or token metadata.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not indicate when to prefer this over getTokenInfo for contract addresses, or getContractABI for contracts, or how it differs from getWhaleMovements which also involves whale wallets.

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