Address risk score (0-100): OFAC status, interaction with sanctioned addresses, contract verification, and activity, with a risk level and flags. Send { address }. Chainalysis-lite risk in one call. [x402 paid tool — price $0.05; POST /api/compliance/risk]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | 0x EVM address |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden and discloses it is a paid tool (x402, $0.05), the HTTP method, and endpoint. It lacks details on side effects, but it is implied to be a read operation. Adequate transparency beyond minimal disclosure.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with key functionality, includes pricing and endpoint. No filler; every sentence adds value.
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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description explains the tool's output (risk level and flags) and input. Missing details on flags or score format, but sufficient for a simple 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% (address described as '0x EVM address'). The description repeats 'Send { address }' without adding meaning beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate with no extra value.
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 addresses risk score (0-100) for an EVM address, including OFAC status, interaction with sanctioned addresses, contract verification, and activity. It differentiates from sibling compliance tools by focusing on a single risk score with flags.
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?
It implies usage for comprehensive risk assessment ('Chainalysis-lite risk in one call') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like compliance_screen or compliance_taint. No when-not-to-use guidance.
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.