Contract decoder: pass a verified 0x contract address to get its function ABI, or a 0x-selector (8 hex) to decode which function it is. Send { input }. Agents understand contracts before calling them. [x402 paid tool — price $0.003; POST /api/crypto/contract]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | Yes | A 0x contract address (40 hex) or 0x function selector (8 hex) |
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 paid nature, endpoint, and input formats, but does not detail error handling, verification requirements, or side effects. This is adequate but not highly transparent.
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?
The description is concise: two sentences plus metadata. Every word is informative, no fluff, well-structured with function first, then context.
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 one-parameter tool without output schema, the description covers the main use cases and cost. It lacks details on output format and error behavior, but is sufficiently complete 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%, and the description redundantly explains the input types (address vs selector). It adds minimal value beyond the schema description, warranting the baseline score.
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 decodes contract ABIs or selectors. It uses a specific verb ('decode') and resource ('contract'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like crypto_token or crypto_tx.
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?
The description implies usage when an agent needs to understand a contract before calling it, and specifies two input modes. However, it does not explicitly exclude other tools or provide 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.