Aave v3 position health: health factor, collateral, debt, liquidation buffer, and a risk verdict for a wallet. Send { address, chain? }. Know your liquidation risk before it hits. [x402 paid tool — price $0.05; POST /api/lending/health]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | No | base (default), ethereum, arbitrum, optimism, polygon | |
| address | Yes | 0x wallet address |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Describes tool as paid ($0.05, x402) and read-only (position health check). Adds context about endpoint and pricing beyond schema. Could be more explicit about idempotence, but nature implies safety.
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?
Extremely concise: two sentences plus a pricing line. No fluff; key information is front-loaded (protocol, output fields, input format, pricing).
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?
With 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, description covers essential aspects: what it returns (health factor, etc.), input format, pricing, endpoint. Missing return structure details, but sufficient for a simple read tool.
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% (both parameters described in schema: address as 0x wallet, chain with default/base). Description repeats 'Send { address, chain? }' without adding new meaning or constraints beyond schema. Baseline 3 applies as schema does the heavy lifting.
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 it provides health factor, collateral, debt, liquidation buffer, and risk verdict for an Aave v3 wallet. It distinguishes from siblings like lending_liquidations and lending_rates.
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?
Indicates when to use: to know liquidation risk before it hits. Provides input format (address, optional chain). Does not explicitly state when not to use, but context implies alternatives (e.g., lending_liquidations for actual liquidations).
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.