Wallet reputation: objective on-chain trust signals for an EVM address (vet a counterparty before dealing). Send { address }. [x402 paid tool — price $0.003; POST /api/wallet/reputation]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | 0x EVM address to score |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is paid (price $0.003) and gives the endpoint. It does not describe expected output, rate limits, or other behavioral traits beyond these.
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, front-loaded with purpose, includes critical cost info. No extraneous 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?
For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter, cost, and endpoint. It is sufficient for an agent to use the tool 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, providing full parameter description. The description adds 'Send { address }' which is redundant but confirms the parameter. No further value is added beyond the 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 provides objective on-chain trust signals for an EVM address, with the purpose to vet a counterparty before dealing. It distinguishes itself from siblings like compliance tools by focusing on reputation and trust signals.
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 suggests using it to vet a counterparty before transacting and mentions it is a paid tool. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools like compliance_risk or compliance_screen.
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.