Rate-limit token bucket: shared self-throttle. Returns allowed + remaining. Send { bucket, token, capacity, refillPerSec, cost? }. [x402 paid tool — price $0.003; POST /api/ratelimit]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cost | No | Tokens to consume, default 1 | |
| token | Yes | Your secret token | |
| bucket | Yes | Bucket name | |
| capacity | Yes | Max tokens | |
| refillPerSec | Yes | Tokens added per second |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool returns allowed+remaining and is a shared self-throttle, but does not detail side effects (e.g., token consumption), authentication requirements, or rate limits on the tool itself. Adequate but not thorough.
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: two sentences plus a note on pricing and endpoint. It is front-loaded with the key concept ('Rate-limit token bucket'), and every sentence serves a purpose. No wasted 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?
The tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, so the description should clarify the return value. It mentions 'Returns allowed + remaining' but does not specify the response structure (e.g., JSON fields). This is minimally adequate but incomplete for a non-trivial 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%, so the schema already describes all parameters. The description merely summarizes the required fields in a compact format (bucket, token, capacity, refillPerSec, cost?) without adding new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 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 the tool implements a rate-limit token bucket and returns allowed+remaining. It specifies the required input object. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools, though its unique purpose as a rate-limiter is evident.
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 self-throttling and mentions it's a paid tool with a price, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives. No usage context or exclusions 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.