Dead-man's switch: if you don't ping within intervalSec, we POST your webhook. Detects crashed agents. Send { id, token, url, intervalSec }. [x402 paid tool — price $0.003; POST /api/deadman/register]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Switch id | |
| url | Yes | Public webhook to fire on miss | |
| token | Yes | Your secret token | |
| intervalSec | Yes | Max seconds between pings |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description covers key behavioral traits: it's a paid tool ($0.003), triggers a POST to a webhook on missed pings, and requires specific fields. It provides enough context for safe usage.
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, with two clear sentences and a structured list of required fields. No wasted words.
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 registration tool with no output schema, the description covers the trigger mechanism, price, and endpoint. It provides sufficient context for proper invocation.
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 parameter descriptions in the schema already explain each field. The description only repeats this info without adding new semantic meaning.
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's purpose as a deadman switch that posts a webhook if not pinged. It distinguishes from the sibling 'deadman_ping' by indicating the registration action.
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 explains when to use it (to detect crashed agents) and implicitly distinguishes from the 'deadman_ping' tool. However, it does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use.
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.