Implied-volatility term structure: ATM IV per expiry and front-month IV for a currency. Rising IV = rising expected volatility. Send { currency }. [x402 paid tool — price $0.005; POST /api/options/vol]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| currency | Yes | BTC, ETH, or SOL |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description provides interpretive context ('Rising IV = rising expected volatility') and cost/endpoint info, but does not disclose rate limits, destructive potential, or other behavioral traits beyond the paid nature.
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 brief (two sentences plus a note) and front-loaded with key information. The bracket note about cost and endpoint is useful but could be integrated more smoothly.
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?
Given one parameter and no output schema, the description explains what is returned (term structure, front-month IV) and interpretation. However, it does not specify output format or data structure, leaving some ambiguity.
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 a clear enum-like description for currency. The description merely repeats 'Send { currency }' without adding new meaning or format details beyond the schema.
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 retrieves implied volatility term structure (ATM IV per expiry and front-month IV) for a specified currency. It distinguishes from sibling tools like options_chain (option chain data) and options_greeks (Greeks) by focusing on implied volatility.
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 shows how to use it (send currency) and notes it's a paid tool, but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives, or when not to use it. No sibling comparisons are made.
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.