evm-nonce

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'Returns' and discloses supported chains and pricing ($0.002/call). It does not cover error handling or rate limits, but for a simple query tool, the transparency is adequate.

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?

Three short sentences succinctly convey purpose, supported chains, and usage advice. Front-loaded with the core action, no extraneous words. Ideal conciseness for agent consumption.

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?

The description lacks specifics on output format (e.g., JSON structure for nonce values) despite having no output schema. For a tool returning two values, the missing structure detail slightly diminishes completeness, though the core purpose is clear.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for both parameters (address and network) with 100% coverage. The description adds value by explicitly listing supported chains (Ethereum, Base, Polygon, Arbitrum, Optimism), which the schema does not enumerate, and gives practical usage advice for the nonce values.

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 it returns the current nonce and pending nonce for any EVM wallet address, specifying a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('nonce'). It lists supported chains, distinguishing it from sibling tools that may query other blockchain data.

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 advises using the pending nonce when building transactions, providing a clear usage context. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use, but the guidance is direct and helpful.

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