Live crypto & token prices in USD. Send tickers or coingecko ids, e.g. { symbols: ["ETH","USDC","BTC"] }. Real-time on-chain pricing for finance and trading agents. [x402 paid tool — price $0.003; POST /api/crypto/price]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbols | Yes | Array of tickers or coingecko ids (1-25), e.g. ["ETH","BTC"] |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It declares the tool is live, real-time, and paid (with price $0.003). But it omits details like rate limits, error handling for invalid symbols, and data freshness guarantees. The behavioral context is adequate but incomplete.
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 a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes an example. It also adds payment and endpoint info, which could be placed in annotations. Still, it is reasonably concise without waste.
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?
The tool is simple (1 param, no output schema). The description covers input format and purpose but fails to describe the output structure or behavior for invalid inputs. Given the lack of output schema, the description should include return value details.
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 sole required parameter. The description rephrases the schema's description and adds an example, but does not provide new semantics beyond what the schema already contains. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 returns live crypto and token prices in USD. It specifies the input format (tickers or coingecko IDs) and gives a concrete example. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that serve other functions like balances or transactions.
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 provides a clear usage example and notes the tool is for real-time on-chain pricing for finance/trading agents. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives for similar tasks (e.g., crypto_convert for conversions).
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.