[Crypto/Base] Decode a Base transaction's calldata into the function it called and its arguments — ERC-20 transfer/approve and the EIP-3009 transferWithAuthorization used by x402 settlements. Recognizes x402 settlement transactions and formats USDC amounts. Costs $0.003. Use tx_status for pass/fail; use this to see WHAT a transaction did.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hash | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses cost ($0.003), specific functions it recognizes, and that it formats USDC amounts. No annotations provided, so the description fully covers behavioral aspects.
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?
Three sentences efficiently cover purpose, specific capabilities, and usage guidance. Front-loaded with core verb and resource.
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 no output schema, the description adequately describes what the output reveals (function, arguments) and mentions specific functions and cost. Complete for a single-parameter decode 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?
The sole parameter 'hash' is implicitly explained as the transaction hash by the context 'decode a Base transaction's calldata', but the description does not explicitly describe it, and schema coverage is 0%.
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 precisely states it decodes a Base transaction's calldata into the function and arguments, listing specific recognized functions like ERC-20 transfer/approve and EIP-3009. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like tx_status.
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 advises using tx_status for pass/fail and this tool to see what a transaction did. Also notifies of a $0.003 cost, setting clear expectations.
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.
Several tools have overlapping purposes, such as multiple x402 transaction verification tools (payment_proof, settlement_assurance, tx_status) and multiple summarization tools (summarize_url, tldr_text). However, descriptions provide enough detail to differentiate them, though an agent could still be confused.
Tool names are inconsistent, mixing verb_noun patterns (e.g., summarize_url, generate_uuid) with noun phrases (e.g., base64, dns_lookup) and inconsistent prefixes (e.g., base_token_info vs base_allowance vs base64). The x402_* group is consistent, but overall naming lacks a unified pattern.
With 49 tools, the server is very heavy. While it aims to be a broad utility server, this number exceeds typical well-scoped servers (3-15 tools) and risks being overwhelming for agents, especially given the mix of unrelated domains.
The server covers a wide range of utilities (crypto, AI, web, dev, x402 payments) but lacks depth in any single area. For instance, there are many read-only tools but few state-changing operations beyond x402. Gaps like file handling or database access are expected given its scope.