If you're an evidentialist, you're not supposed to be a pragmatist. So, I'd think you'd reject the following view:
The Following View: A belief's justification depends on evidence that possessing that belief will serve the agent's practical aims.
Why does the evidentialist reject TFV? I would have thought that the reason would have to do with the norms of belief. Once we specify the norms of belief, we can answer the 'Evidence of what?' question. So, what should the evidentialist say is the norm of belief? If they have some other way of answering the 'Evidence of what?' question, what is it?