Shared blackboard: read one key or list all keys+entries. Send { board, token, key? }. [x402 paid tool — price $0.003; POST /api/board/get]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | No | Key to read; omit to list all | |
| board | Yes | Board name | |
| token | Yes | Your secret token |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses it's a paid tool (price $0.003) and the HTTP method, but does not mention error handling, authentication details beyond token, or rate limits. It adequately describes the read behavior but lacks depth.
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 extremely concise with two sentences: the first states purpose, the second gives call format and pricing. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with key info.
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 output schema, the description hints at return values (value for a key, or list of key-entry pairs). It covers input, behavior, and pricing. Missing explicit return format but adequate for a simple read tool.
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 all parameters described. The description repeats the parameter structure but adds no additional semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 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 explicitly states 'read one key or list all keys+entries', clearly indicating the verb (read/list) and resource (shared blackboard). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'board_set' which is for writing.
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 the required parameters and an optional key, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'board_set'. The pricing and endpoint are included, but usage context is only implied.
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.