Decode raw calldata into its function + arguments and flag dangerous patterns (unlimited approve, setApprovalForAll, permit, transferFrom). Send { data }. Understand what a transaction actually does before signing. [x402 paid tool — price $0.05; POST /api/safety/decode]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | 0x calldata blob |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description carries burden. Discloses flagging of specific dangerous patterns, pricing ($0.05), and endpoint. Omits details on error handling or output format but adequate for a read-only decode operation.
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?
Two sentences covering purpose and context, plus a concise line for pricing/endpoint. No wasted words, information is front-loaded.
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?
Tool is simple (one param, no output schema) but description lacks any mention of return value format or behavior on invalid input. Agent may need more to interpret results correctly.
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?
Only parameter 'data' has schema description '0x calldata blob'; description reinforces this. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3, and description adds no additional constraints or examples beyond schema.
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 'Decode raw calldata into its function + arguments and flag dangerous patterns', specifying verb, resource, and output. Distinguishes from sibling tools like safety_simulate by focusing on decoding.
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?
Explicitly instructs to 'Send { data }' and frames usage context as understanding a transaction before signing. However, no direct comparison to alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios.
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.