Recurring webhook: fire your URL on a cron schedule (repeats). Send { token, url, cron, payload?, method? }. [x402 paid tool — price $0.003; POST /api/schedule/cron]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Public callback URL | |
| cron | Yes | 5-field cron expression (UTC) | |
| token | Yes | Your secret token | |
| method | No | POST or GET | |
| payload | No | JSON body to POST |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool is paid, its endpoint, and that it repeats. However, it lacks crucial behavioral details such as error handling, cancellation, or limits on the URL endpoint. The phrase 'Send {...}' is ambiguous regarding parameter input.
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 a single sentence that concisely conveys purpose, inputs, pricing, and endpoint. It is efficiently structured and front-loaded with key information, though it could separate meta-info from functional details.
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 complexity of a scheduling tool (no annotations, no output schema, 5 parameters), the description is incomplete. It omits success/failure responses, status checking, deletion, and prerequisites like URL accessibility. The paid nature is noted, but overall context for agent decision-making is lacking.
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 baseline is 3. The description repeats the input fields with a shorthand notation but adds no meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain token's purpose or URL format beyond what the schema already says.
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 creates a recurring webhook that fires a URL on a cron schedule, using a specific verb 'fire' and resource 'webhook'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'schedule' by specifying 'repeats' and including 'cron' in the name.
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 recurring webhook tasks but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'schedule' or 'cron_explain'. No when-not or exclusion criteria 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.