FIFO realized-gains estimate for a wallet: per-token and total realized profit/loss in USD from its Base ERC-20 trade history, priced at historical closes. Send { address }. Fast cost-basis/tax estimate (not filing-grade — see notes). [x402 paid tool — price $0.05; POST /api/portfolio/taxlots]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | 0x wallet address (Base) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, but description discloses use of FIFO, historical closes, Base ERC-20 trade history, and estimates nature. Mentions fast estimate and not filing-grade. Lacks details like rate limits or idempotency, but overall transparent.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose. No fluff. Efficiently conveys purpose, input, caveat, and pricing/endpoint.
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 1 parameter and no output schema, description covers input, methodology, output summary, and limitations. Missing explicit return format, but sufficient for the tool's simplicity.
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 schema already documents address. Description adds 'Base' specificity, but does not significantly enhance beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 FIFO realized-gains estimate for a wallet, per-token and total realized P&L in USD. Distinguishes from sibling tools like portfolio_pnl and portfolio_risk by specifying FIFO and tax lots aspect.
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?
Provides clear input instruction (Send { address }) and important caveat (not filing-grade). Could be improved by explicitly stating when to use alternatives, but sufficient for a focused tool.
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.