[Crypto/Base] Check a Base transaction: success/reverted/pending, confirmations, gas, explorer link. Costs $0.002. Choose this for a quick raw status; use payment_receipt for decoded transfers, or settlement_assurance to PROVE an x402 payment settled to the right wallet/amount.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hash | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses cost ($0.002) and implies read-only behavior via 'Check'. With no annotations, the description adequately covers key behavioral traits, though it could mention rate limits or auth requirements.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with category, verb, and resource. No unnecessary 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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, output, cost, and alternatives. No 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 coverage is 0% as no description for the 'hash' parameter. However, the description contextually ties the hash parameter to the transaction, making its meaning clear without explicit elaboration.
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 checks a Base transaction and lists specific outputs (success/reverted/pending, confirmations, gas, explorer link). It also distinguishes from sibling tools payment_receipt and settlement_assurance.
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 when to use this tool ('quick raw status') and when to use alternatives ('use payment_receipt for decoded transfers, or settlement_assurance to PROVE an x402 payment'), providing clear usage context.
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.