Pub/sub: fetch messages on a topic newer than a sequence number. Send { topic, token, since? }. [x402 paid tool — price $0.003; POST /api/pubsub/poll]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| since | No | Return messages with seq greater than this | |
| token | Yes | Your secret token | |
| topic | Yes | Topic name |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is paid ($0.003 per call) and uses a POST method, which are important behavioral traits. However, it does not mention rate limits, idempotency, or what happens when no messages are available, leaving some gaps.
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 extremely concise with a single sentence covering purpose, request format, and pricing. It is front-loaded with the key action and avoids any fluff, making it efficient for agent parsing.
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 the absence of an output schema, the description should have hinted at the return format or behavior (e.g., list of messages). It only specifies the input format. For a polling tool, information about pagination or empty responses would be valuable, but it is missing.
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 the baseline is 3. The description repeats the parameter format '{ topic, token, since? }' and adds context that 'since' is optional (indicated by '?') and filters for newer messages. This adds marginal clarity beyond the existing schema descriptions, which already explain each parameter.
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 explicitly states the verb 'fetch' and the resource 'messages on a topic' with a clear condition 'newer than a sequence number'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like pubsub_publish (which publishes) and inbox_poll (which fetches inbox messages) by specifying the pub/sub topic context and the 'since' parameter.
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 provides a basic usage context: 'fetch messages on a topic newer than a sequence number'. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives among the many sibling tools. However, the simple nature of the tool makes the purpose self-explanatory for most use cases.
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.