Multi-chain wallet net worth: total USD value, per-chain breakdown, positions, and allocation % across Base, Ethereum, Arbitrum, Optimism and Polygon holdings. Send { address }. Instant cross-chain portfolio snapshot for treasury agents. [x402 paid tool — price $0.05; POST /api/portfolio/value]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | 0x wallet address |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but description discloses it's an instant read-only snapshot and mentions pricing. This adds behavioral context beyond the schema, though it doesn't detail side effects or auth needs.
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: purpose, usage, pricing/endpoint. Front-loaded with key information, no unnecessary words.
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?
No output schema, but description explains output includes total USD, per-chain breakdown, positions, and allocation %. Chains are listed. Missing details like data freshness or pagination, but adequate for a snapshot 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% for the single 'address' parameter, which is described as '0x wallet address'. Description repeats this without adding new syntax or constraints, so 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?
The description clearly states it computes multi-chain wallet net worth with total USD, per-chain breakdown, positions, and allocation % across specified chains. It distinguishes from sibling tools like portfolio_pnl and portfolio_risk by focusing on snapshot of holdings.
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?
It says 'Send { address }' and mentions it's for treasury agents and a paid tool ($0.05). It provides usage context but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives.
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.