Date/time math + timezones. op: now | convert | add | diff. Send { op, time?, timezone?, amount?, unit?, to? }. [x402 paid tool — price $0.003; POST /api/datetime]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| op | Yes | now, convert, add, or diff | |
| to | No | end time for diff | |
| time | No | ISO/epoch input time | |
| unit | No | s/m/h/d/w for add | |
| amount | No | amount for add | |
| timezone | No | IANA tz, e.g. America/New_York |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses pricing ($0.003) and endpoint (POST /api/datetime), indicating a paid tool; no annotations provided, so description adequately covers cost and method, though could mention error handling or response format.
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 short sentences front-load purpose and operations; every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
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?
No output schema exists, and description omits any mention of return values or format; for a tool with 6 parameters, this is a significant gap in completeness.
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 all parameters described; description summarizes the JSON structure and operation types, but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema descriptions.
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 clearly states 'Date/time math + timezones' and lists four specific operations (now, convert, add, diff), making the purpose unambiguous and distinguishing it from sibling tools like calc or business_days.
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?
Implies usage through operations list and parameter structure; lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but context is clear for date/time manipulation tasks.
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.