Tainted-funds tracing: does this wallet's incoming money trace back to a sanctioned address within N hops? Multi-hop fund-flow trace on Base. Send { address, hops? }. Screen incoming payments before accepting them. [x402 paid tool — price $0.05; POST /api/compliance/taint]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hops | No | Trace depth 1-3 (default 2) | |
| address | Yes | 0x EVM address (Base) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so description carries full burden. Discloses paid x402 nature, price, endpoint, and base chain. Does not detail response format or error behavior, but describes intended boolean-like outcome ('does trace back?').
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?
Concise one-sentence description with practical tip and payment/endpoint note. Front-loaded with key question, no fluff.
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?
Good contextual completeness given no output schema; describes expected outcome. Lacks explicit return format but inferable. Complexity handled adequately.
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 covers 100% with parameter descriptions. Description repeats parameter info but adds no extra meaning beyond schema. Baseline 3.
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?
Explicitly states 'tainted-funds tracing' with clear verb 'trace' and resource 'incoming money' to sanctioned addresses. Distinguishes from siblings like compliance_screen by specifying multi-hop trace on Base.
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?
Provides context 'Screen incoming payments before accepting them', indicating when to use. Does not explicitly exclude alternatives but implies use case. Could mention when not to use.
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.