Entity labeling: is this address an EOA, a (proxy) contract, a known protocol, or flagged as scam — with name and public tags. Send { address }. [x402 paid tool — price $0.05; POST /api/compliance/label]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | 0x EVM address |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Despite no annotations, the description reveals it is a paid tool (x402, $0.05) and includes the API endpoint. This adds behavioral context, though it does not explicitly state if it's read-only or other side effects. Cost transparency is a strong positive.
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 a single sentence covering purpose, input, output, and pricing. It is front-loaded with the primary function. Could be slightly more concise by omitting the endpoint, but overall efficient.
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?
With one required parameter and no output schema, the description adequately lists output categories (EOA, contract, protocol, scam) and tags. Pricing and endpoint context are included. Complete enough given the tool's simplicity.
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% (address with '0x EVM address' description). The tool description merely restates 'Send { address }', adding no new meaning. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since schema already fully documents the parameter.
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 function: labeling an address as EOA, contract, known protocol, or scam, with name and public tags. It distinguishes from sibling compliance tools like compliance_risk or compliance_screen by focusing on entity categorization.
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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., compliance_risk, compliance_screen). The pricing and endpoint are given, but criteria for choosing labels over risk scores are absent.
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.