evmscope

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

Discloses Ethereum mainnet restriction ('Ethereum mainnet 전용'), which is crucial behavioral context given no annotations. However, lacks disclosure on failure modes (what happens if ENS unregistered?), whether resolution is cached, rate limits, or read-only nature (inferred but not stated).

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 efficiently conveys core function and network constraint. No wasted words. Front-loaded with action verb ('해석합니다'). Slight penalty for brevity that sacrifices completeness regarding return values and error handling.

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?

Adequate for a single-parameter lookup tool, but lacks description of return structure (address string vs object? forward vs reverse resolution indicator?) given no output schema exists. No mention of null/empty response handling for unregistered names.

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 parameter 'nameOrAddress' already documented with examples (vitalik.eth, 0x...). Tool description reinforces bidirectional capability but adds minimal semantic value beyond the complete schema. Baseline 3 appropriate per criteria 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?

Clearly states bidirectional resolution between ENS names and Ethereum addresses with the ↔ symbol and '양방향으로' (bidirectionally). Specifies Ethereum mainnet scope, distinguishing from potential multi-chain siblings. Falls short of 5 by not explicitly differentiating from 'identifyAddress' sibling which may also resolve address 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 siblings like 'identifyAddress' or 'getBalance'. Does not mention prerequisites (e.g., ENS name must be registered) or failure scenarios (unregistered names).

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