SYNTHORA tx-simulator: simulate an EVM transaction before signing — SAFE/WARN/DANGER verdict, decoded intent, warnings and checks performed. Pre-trade safety for agent wallets. $0.03 USDC x402 Base.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | No | parametros del producto (JSON o texto) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns with them. It adds useful behavioral context by naming the verdict classes, decoded intent, checks performed, and the $0.03 USDC cost, giving the agent a fuller picture without contradicting 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 definition is compact and front-loaded with the core action and result. The branding and pricing are extra but relevant operational details; they do not bloat the description enough to warrant a lower score.
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?
The output schema and annotations cover return values and safety, and the description provides usage context, but the exact input format for the EVM transaction is left ambiguous. An agent may know roughly when to use the tool but not precisely how to populate the single 'input' parameter.
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 covers its single parameter with 'parametros del producto (JSON o texto)', but that is a generic Spanish placeholder rather than a precise description of how to pass a transaction. The tool description implies an EVM transaction is the input but does not specify the exact format, so it adds only marginal meaning 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 identifies the action ('simulate an EVM transaction before signing') and the concrete outputs (SAFE/WARN/DANGER verdict, decoded intent, warnings, checks). It is specific enough to distinguish this tool from the risk-analytics and monitoring siblings like asset_risk or txintent.
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 gives a clear usage moment ('before signing') and domain ('Pre-trade safety for agent wallets'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.
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.
The Polymarket/resolution cluster alone has eight tools (dispute_risk, market_resolution, resolution_source_feed, resolution_verdict, polymarket_resolution_watch, polymarket_odds_movers, polymarket_whales, insider_radar) with heavily overlapping responsibilities, and several risk-verdict tools also blur together. Descriptions clarify somewhat, but an agent would frequently need to read full details to avoid selecting the wrong tool.
Nearly all tools use lowercase snake_case noun-phrase names like asset_risk and sanctions_screen. A few one-word compounds (codeaudit, macrobundle, txintent) and varying prefixes break the pattern slightly, but the overall style is consistent and readable.
30 tools exceeds the 25-tool threshold and feels heavy even for a multi-domain data marketplace. Many tools are individually sold data products, and several could be consolidated — particularly the resolution/verdict/source-feed group.
The surface covers the stated domains well: maritime/chokepoint risk, Polymarket resolution and trading signals, DeFi/macro data, and transaction/identity security. Minor gaps include no registry-list/query companion to registry_watch and no historical time-series endpoint for risk verdicts, but core workflows are not dead-ended.
