evm-log-events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool queries logs (implied read-only), returns up to 50 entries, and charges $0.004/call. Pricing and chain support are stated, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or non-destructive, which would be helpful.

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 concise (two sentences) yet packs essential information: purpose, filters, return format, chain support, and pricing. No fluff or repetition, every sentence adds value.

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 the tool has no output schema, the description fully explains return data (decoded log entries with topics, data, tx hash, block number). It covers input filters, supported chains, and pricing, making it complete for an EVM log query tool with 6 optional parameters.

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 detailed descriptions for each parameter (e.g., topic0 includes common values). The description adds overall context (e.g., 'up to 50 decoded log entries') but does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool queries EVM contract event logs via eth_getLogs, lists filter options (address, topic, block range), and specifies return format (up to 50 decoded log entries with fields). It distinguishes itself from sibling crypto tools by focusing specifically on log events and mentions supported chains and pricing.

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 usage context (supported chains, pricing) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like tx-intel or eth-block. It implies usage for log queries but lacks exclusion criteria or alternative recommendations.

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