Full wallet portfolio: native ETH + all ERC-20 token balances for an address on Base, with amounts. Send { address }. Let agents read any wallet's holdings. [x402 paid tool — price $0.003; POST /api/crypto/balances]
| 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 provided, so description carries burden. It discloses cost ($0.003), endpoint, and that it reads any wallet holdings. Could add details on error handling or auth requirements, but overall good.
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 the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, from scope to usage to cost. 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?
For a simple tool with no output schema, it covers purpose, scope, cost, endpoint, and parameter. Could be more explicit about return format 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description mentions 'address' and 'Send { address }' but adds no meaning beyond schema's '0x EVM wallet address on Base'.
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 specifies the verb 'get balances' and resource 'wallet portfolio for an address on Base' with scope 'native ETH + all ERC-20'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like crypto_token (single token) and crypto_price (price only).
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 states 'Let agents read any wallet's holdings' which clearly indicates a read operation. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, the purpose is clear enough for usage context.
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.