Distributed lock: acquire a named lock for ttlSec so only one agent proceeds. Returns acquired:false if held. Send { name, token, ttlSec? }. [x402 paid tool — price $0.003; POST /api/lock/acquire]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Lock name | |
| token | Yes | Your secret token | |
| ttlSec | No | Auto-expire seconds (default 60, max 3600) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry full burden. It discloses pricing, endpoint, and the 'acquired:false' case, but does not specify the exact success response (e.g., acquires:true) or behavior details like idempotency or concurrency guarantees.
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 and front-loaded with the core action. It packs purpose, input format, pricing, and endpoint in two sentences. Minor redundancy ('Send { name, token, ttlSec? }' could be omitted given schema, but it aids quick scanning.)
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?
The description covers the basic essentials: what it does, input, and failure case. However, it omits the success response format and details about the 'token' parameter's role in payment. For a simple tool, this is adequate but not fully complete.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds context: ttlSec is optional with default (60) and max (3600), and hints that 'token' is the secret token for payment. This goes slightly beyond the schema but not extensively.
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 action ('acquire a named lock') and its effect ('so only one agent proceeds'). It distinguishes from sibling 'lock_release' by implication, providing a specific verb and resource.
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 gives clear context: it's a distributed lock for exclusive access. It mentions the input format and a paid price. However, it lacks explicit 'when-not-to-use' or direct comparison to alternatives beyond 'lock_release'.
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.