Transaction status & receipt on Base: confirmations, success/fail, from/to, value, fee, method. Send { hash }. Agents confirm their on-chain actions settled. [x402 paid tool — price $0.003; POST /api/crypto/tx]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hash | Yes | 0x transaction hash (66 chars) |
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 that the tool is paid ($0.003) and the endpoint (POST /api/crypto/tx). It does not mention rate limits or idempotency, but for a simple read-like query, this is adequate. No contradiction.
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 extremely concise: one sentence listing fields, one sentence on usage, one sentence on cost and endpoint. No wasted words, front-loaded with the most important information.
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 the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is sufficient. It explains the tool's purpose, input requirement, and business context (paid tool). It does not detail return format but lists the fields, which is 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% with one parameter 'hash' already described in the schema. The description adds 'Send { hash }' which is redundant and adds no further meaning. 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 it provides transaction status and receipt on Base, listing specific fields like confirmations, success/fail, from/to, value, fee, method. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like rhchain_tx by specifying the chain, and the purpose is unambiguous.
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 by saying 'Send { hash }' and indicates a use case for agents to confirm their on-chain actions. However, it does not explicitly state when to use alternatives or when not to use this tool, though mentioning 'on Base' provides some 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.