Transaction simulation: will this tx succeed or revert, and why? Returns success/revert reason, return data, and decoded action. Send { chain, to, data, from?, value? }. Dry-run before signing. [x402 paid tool — price $0.05; POST /api/safety/simulate]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | Yes | 0x target address | |
| data | No | 0x calldata | |
| from | No | 0x sender | |
| chain | No | Chain, default base | |
| value | No | Native value in wei |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the paid nature ($0.05) and the endpoint, but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive or mention rate limits/auth requirements. The behavioral info is decent but not comprehensive.
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 concise (two sentence-like segments) and front-loaded with purpose and output. Parameter summary and cost note are appended without redundancy. Every piece adds value.
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 5 parameters with full schema descriptions and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does and returns. However, it omits details like supported chains (though 'chain' param allows it) or error handling, but these are minor gaps.
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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description only lists parameter names without adding new semantic details beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., types, descriptions are in 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?
The description clearly states the tool simulates a transaction to determine success or revert, and specifies the output (reason, return data, decoded action). It distinguishes from sibling safety tools by emphasizing 'dry-run before signing.'
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 context: 'Dry-run before signing' implying use before sending a transaction. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool references, despite having siblings like safety_approvals or preflight.
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.