Portfolio 24h PnL: unrealized profit/loss in USD and % on current holdings, plus the biggest movers. Send { address }. Track how the book is doing. [x402 paid tool — price $0.05; POST /api/portfolio/pnl]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | 0x wallet address (Base) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It notes the tool is paid and includes the endpoint, but does not clarify if it is read-only, any side effects, authentication needs, or behavior on invalid addresses. The description adds basic context but lacks depth.
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 with two sentences, front-loading the core purpose. The inclusion of pricing and endpoint adds minor length but is arguably useful context. Overall efficient with little waste.
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 one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately describes the output (unrealized PnL in USD and %, plus movers). It also mentions the paid nature. It sufficiently covers the tool's functionality without major gaps.
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?
The input schema covers 100% of parameters, with the description only echoing 'Send { address }'. The schema already describes the address as '0x wallet address (Base)', so the description adds no meaningful extra semantics beyond what the schema provides.
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 provides 'unrealized profit/loss in USD and % on current holdings, plus the biggest movers' for a portfolio, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like portfolio_risk or portfolio_value by focusing on PnL.
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 implies usage for tracking portfolio performance ('Track how the book is doing') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like portfolio_value or portfolio_risk. No exclusion criteria or alternative recommendations are provided.
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.