Agent/wallet reputation score (0-100): a portable on-chain trust signal — activity, holdings, counterparty diversity, and sanctions — with a tier (untrusted/new/emerging/established/trusted). Send { address }. Decide whether to transact with a wallet in the agent economy. [x402 paid tool — price $0.05; POST /api/agent/reputation]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | 0x wallet address to score |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses output composition (score, tier, components) and mentions it's a paid tool (cost, endpoint). However, it does not explicitly state it is read-only or describe any side effects beyond the cost.
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 (four lines) and front-loaded with key information (score range, tier, components). It includes useful extras (cost, endpoint) without excessive verbosity. Could be slightly tighter but is well-structured.
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 simple input (one parameter) and no output schema, the description covers purpose, input, output composition, and pricing. It does not detail the return format or tier interpretation, but it is sufficiently complete for informed use.
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 a single parameter described as '0x wallet address to score'. The description repeats this ('Send { address }') but adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema description. Baseline 3 applies.
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 a reputation score (0-100) and tier for an address, listing components (activity, holdings, etc.) and the use case (decide whether to transact). It distinguishes from siblings like 'wallet_reputation' by mentioning 'agent economy', though overlap remains.
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 gives a clear use case ('Decide whether to transact with a wallet in the agent economy') but does not specify when not to use it or mention alternative sibling tools (e.g., compliance tools). No explicit exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools are organized by domain prefix (e.g., 'crypto_', 'rh_', 'snipe_'), which helps distinguish between areas. Within each domain, they serve distinct purposes, though some overlap between domains exists (e.g., price data appears in multiple groups). Overall, an agent can navigate effectively.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with a domain prefix and a verb_noun combination (e.g., 'compliance_risk', 'rh_stock', 'snipe_honeypot'). This makes the API predictable and easy to explore.
With 159 tools, the server is extremely large. While the broad scope of web3 and utility functions justifies many tools, the count is significantly above the typical range for a coherent toolkit, potentially overwhelming agents and increasing selection error.
The toolkit covers a wide range of web3 operations: crypto, DeFi, compliance, safety, scheduling, memory, etc. There are no obvious major gaps for its intended purpose, though some niche areas might be missing.