Find protocols that have tracked token-unlock schedules, by name substring. Send { query }. Use the returned slug with catalysts/unlocks. [x402 paid tool — price $0.005; POST /api/catalysts/search]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results, default 20 (max 100) | |
| query | No | Name substring, e.g. "arb" |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that this is a paid tool ($0.005 per call) and the HTTP method (POST). It does not mention rate limits, idempotency, or read-only nature, which would be helpful. However, it is adequate for a straightforward search tool.
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 clear sentences plus a footer. It front-loads the purpose and uses bullet-like formatting for the API details. Every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy.
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 tool's simplicity (no output schema, only 2 params), the description covers the main aspects: purpose, usage pattern, and cost. It could mention that the response includes a 'slug' and possibly other fields, but the hint to use the slug with catalysts/unlocks is sufficient context for an agent.
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 both 'query' and 'limit' already described in the schema. The description adds that 'query' is a name substring and 'limit' has a max of 100, but these are also in the schema. Therefore, the description adds minimal additional value beyond the 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's purpose: to find protocols with tracked token-unlock schedules by name substring. It also specifies the output (slug) and its subsequent use. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like catalysts_calendar, catalysts_governance, and catalysts_unlocks.
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 clear context for use: send a query and use the returned slug with catalysts/unlocks. It also notes it's a paid tool with a price and endpoint. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among the many sibling tools.
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.