Validate EIP-712 typed structured data and derive its domain separator, message hash, and signing digest.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| typed_data | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | Structured EIP-712 hash result | |
| meta | Yes | ||
| service | Yes | ||
| version | Yes | ||
| request_id | Yes | Unique request identifier |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent behavior, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds the behavioral detail that the tool validates and derives three specific outputs. However, it doesn't mention error behavior on invalid data or whether network access is required, which would be useful context beyond the annotations.
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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the action, the target, and the outputs.
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 complex EIP-712 tool, the description covers the essential purpose and outputs. An output schema exists to handle return details, so the description need not explain the full return structure. It could mention validation failure behavior or the context of signing, but overall it is sufficiently complete given the annotations and schema.
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 schema has zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It identifies the input as 'EIP-712 typed structured data', which adds a bit of meaning over the schema's generic 'Typed Data' label. But it doesn't specify the required object shape (e.g., types, primaryType, domain, message). With only one param, the hint is minimal but adequate for an agent to make a reasonable guess.
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 uses a specific verb ('Validate', 'derive') and clearly identifies the resource ('EIP-712 typed structured data') and the distinct outputs (domain separator, message hash, signing digest). This strongly distinguishes it from sibling tools like crypto.calldata-decode.
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 the tool is for EIP-712 typed data hashing/validation but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria. There is no mention of related tools or scenarios where a different tool would be more appropriate.
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 grouped into clear domain prefixes (crypto, data, developer, document, research, web) and each tool name describes a specific function; however, a few umbrella tools like web.full-audit and data.contract overlap with their more targeted counterparts, creating minor ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent pattern: a domain prefix, a dot, and a hyphenated lowercase compound name (e.g., crypto.base-block-inspect, web.seo-audit). This makes naming predictable and easy to scan.
At 63 tools, the surface area is very large and exceeds the 50+ threshold for extreme mismatch. While the tools are organized into six domains, the sheer number makes it difficult for an agent to select efficiently, and some tools are bundled combinations of others.
Each domain offers a thorough set of operations: crypto covers address, account, block, contract, events, gas, and transaction inspection; data covers cleaning, conversion, schema, and validation; developer covers code review, dependency/license audits, and test generation; research covers SEC, OFAC, GLEIF, and USAspending; web covers extraction, SEO, security, and performance. No obvious dead ends exist for the read-only/inspection purpose.