Shared blackboard: set a versioned key on a multi-writer board. Send { board, token, key, value }. [x402 paid tool — price $0.003; POST /api/board/set]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | Entry key | |
| board | Yes | Board name | |
| token | Yes | Your secret token | |
| value | Yes | JSON value |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions 'shared blackboard' and 'multi-writer' implying concurrency, but fails to explain versioning behavior, idempotency, error handling, or response details. Critical gaps remain.
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?
Two sentences front-load purpose and input format. No wasted words, includes pricing and endpoint. Efficient and 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?
Without output schema, the description should explain return values, versioning details, and concurrency semantics. It lacks this context, leaving the agent underinformed for a mutating shared resource.
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%, so parameters are documented. The description echoes the required fields without adding new semantics (e.g., what 'versioned key' means for the 'key' parameter). Minimal value beyond schema.
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 sets a versioned key on a shared blackboard, with a distinct verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling 'board_get' which reads, making purpose unambiguous.
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 a usage example but no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives, such as when to prefer board_get or conditions for avoiding this tool. Context is limited to input format.
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.