Add/subtract business days (skips weekends + given holidays). Send { start?, addDays, holidays?, timezone? }. [x402 paid tool — price $0.003; POST /api/business-days]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| start | No | ISO start date, default now | |
| addDays | Yes | Business days to add (can be negative) | |
| holidays | No | Array of YYYY-MM-DD holiday strings | |
| timezone | No | IANA tz |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions weekend/holiday skipping but fails to describe output format, error handling, or timezone effects, leaving significant gaps.
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: first defines purpose, second lists input shape and pricing. Front-loaded and efficient, though pricing info could be moved to reduce verbosity.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description should clarify return values (e.g., 'returns an ISO date string'). It does not, leaving the agent unsure of the tool's output format.
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?
All 4 parameters are documented in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond repeating parameter names and noting addDays can be negative. 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 the verb 'add/subtract' and resource 'business days', with specific behavior 'skips weekends + given holidays'. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'datetime' which does not specialize in business days.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description includes pricing and endpoint but no context on prerequisites or when not to use it.
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.