EVM MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool retrieves 'comprehensive information' but does not specify response format, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose and key data points, the second provides usage context. Every sentence adds value with zero waste, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and basic usage but lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., response format, error handling) and does not explain return values. For a read tool with 2 parameters, it is minimally viable but has clear gaps in completeness.

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%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (network and tokenAddress). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Get comprehensive information') and resource ('ERC20 token'), listing key data points like name, symbol, decimals, total supply, and metadata. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on token metadata analysis rather than balances (e.g., get_token_balance) or transfers (e.g., transfer_erc20).

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('to analyze any token on EVM chains'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. It implies usage for metadata retrieval rather than balance checking or transaction operations, though no explicit exclusions are given.

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