Idempotency key: returns firstTime:true only once per key within ttl (dedupe retries/double-sends). Send { key, token, ttlSec? }. [x402 paid tool — price $0.003; POST /api/idempotency]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | Idempotency key | |
| token | Yes | Your secret token | |
| ttlSec | No | TTL seconds, default 86400 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the core behavior: firstTime:true only once per key within TTL. It also mentions it is a paid tool with a price. However, it lacks details such as what happens after TTL expires, potential error conditions, or rate limiting. Without annotations, the description carries the full burden and could be more 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 extremely concise: a single sentence plus key metadata (price, endpoint). No wasted words, and the core functionality is front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.
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 tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context to understand the behavior and usage. It covers the key feature and pricing. Minor gaps: does not explicitly state the response format beyond 'firstTime:true', but that is implied.
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 clear descriptions for each parameter. The description adds little beyond restating the payload format. It confirms ttlSec is optional and notes the default is implicit from schema. Given high schema coverage, a baseline of 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's purpose: it provides idempotency keys with a firstTime flag for deduplicating retries or double-sends. The verb 'returns' and resource 'idempotency key' are specific and 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 indicates when to use the tool (for deduplication) and provides the required payload format. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives. Since no sibling tools overlap, this is acceptable but leaves room for improvement.
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.