Wallet activity summary: recent transactions, top methods called, distinct counterparties, and latest actions for an address on Base. Send { address }. Agents profile what a wallet does. [x402 paid tool — price $0.003; POST /api/crypto/activity]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | 0x EVM wallet address on Base |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool is paid (x402, $0.003) and the endpoint, but does not mention read-only nature, rate limits, or error handling. The cost disclosure is a positive, but otherwise the description lacks behavioral context.
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?
Description is concise in three sentences, front-loading the core function. The sentence 'Agents profile what a wallet does' is somewhat redundant and could be removed, but overall it is efficient and easy to parse.
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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is fairly complete by listing output components (transactions, methods, counterparties, actions). However, it does not specify the return format, depth of data, or error behavior, leaving some gaps 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% for the single parameter 'address', which already describes it as a 0x EVM address on Base. The description adds minimal extra meaning, only restating 'send { address }' and 'for an address on Base'. No examples or format details are provided 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?
Description explicitly states it provides a wallet activity summary including recent transactions, top methods, distinct counterparties, and latest actions on Base. This clearly defines the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from sibling tools like crypto_tx or wallet_reputation.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., rhchain_activity for other chains, crypto_tx for transaction listing). The description simply instructs to 'Send { address }' without providing context or exclusion criteria.
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.