Explain a cron expression: the next N run times in a timezone. Send { expression, count?, timezone? }. [x402 paid tool — price $0.003; POST /api/cron/explain]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | How many next runs, default 5 | |
| timezone | No | IANA tz | |
| expression | Yes | 5-field cron expression |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description mentions paid nature and endpoint but does not explicitly state it is read-only or safe. Adequate but not thorough.
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?
Very concise, front-loaded with purpose, includes cost and endpoint. Every word contributes.
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?
For a simple tool with no output schema, description sufficiently explains what the tool returns (next run times). Missing format details but adequate.
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?
100% schema coverage. Description adds context by showing expected JSON structure and noting optional parameters (count?, timezone?). Adds value beyond 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?
Clearly states the tool explains a cron expression by showing next N run times in a timezone. Distinguishes from siblings like schedule_cron which is for scheduling.
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?
Implied usage: when needing to understand a cron expression's future runs. No explicit when-not or alternatives, leaving some ambiguity.
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.