EVM MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic function. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like error handling (e.g., for invalid names), performance characteristics, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens on different networks. 'Resolve' suggests a lookup operation, but details are missing.

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 core purpose with zero wasted words. Every word earns its place by directly contributing to understanding the tool's function.

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 is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values (e.g., address format, null for unresolved names), error conditions, or network dependencies hinted in the schema. For a lookup tool with potential complexity across networks, more context is needed.

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 fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., no examples of resolution outcomes or network-specific behaviors). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 ('resolve') and target resource ('ENS name to an Ethereum address'), using precise terminology. It directly distinguishes this tool from all sibling tools, which involve token operations, transfers, contract interactions, or blockchain data queries rather than ENS resolution.

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 context (converting ENS names to addresses) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no sibling tools for ENS resolution, so differentiation isn't needed, but it doesn't mention prerequisites like network availability or typical use cases.

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