Webhook inbox: fetch captured messages newer than a timestamp. Send { id, token, since? }. [x402 paid tool — price $0.003; POST /api/inbox/poll]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Inbox id | |
| since | No | Epoch ms; return newer messages | |
| token | Yes | Your secret token |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions the tool is paid and uses POST, but omits key details like idempotency, error handling, or what happens when no new messages exist. This is insufficient for safe and effective use.
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 clear sentence plus a parenthetical with endpoint and pricing. It front-loads the purpose and includes essential operational details without waste. Every part 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 polling tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It doesn't describe the response format, pagination, or potential errors. The pricing and endpoint info help, but the agent lacks full context for reliable integration.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the schema structure ('id', 'token', 'since?') without adding new meaning or clarifying the format of 'since' beyond what the schema already says. It meets the minimum but adds no extra value.
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 fetches captured messages from a webhook inbox newer than a timestamp. It specifies the request format and distinguishes itself from sibling 'inbox_create' by focusing on polling. The purpose is unambiguous and well-defined.
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?
While the description indicates when to use the tool (fetching messages), it provides no guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like 'pubsub_poll' or 'queue_pop'. The agent is left without context for tool selection.
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.