Recent buys by wallets with PROVEN realized on-chain PnL (win-rate + SOL profit shown), each with a live Guard safety check and an execution hint. HONEST: wallet track records are real; the EV of copying them is under live validation, not yet proven. Non-custodial.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It goes beyond a dry listing by disclosing that track records are real while copying EV is unproven, that each signal includes a live Guard safety check, and that the operation is non-custodial. It does not detail return structure or data freshness, but the honesty caveat is meaningful behavioral context.
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 compact and front-loaded with the core offering ('Recent buys by wallets...'), followed by a direct caveat. It contains little fluff, though the capitalized 'HONEST' is mildly stylistic and the final 'Non-custodial' tag adds context without disrupting readability.
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 signal-feed tool, the description conveys the main value and risk posture, but important invocation details are missing: what 'limit' controls, whether there is a default, how results are ordered, and how this differs from sibling tools. The lack of an output schema also leaves the exact result shape under-specified.
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% and the description never mentions the 'limit' parameter, its meaning, default behavior, or constraints. Since the schema provides only 'type: integer' with no description, the agent receives no help understanding whether or how to set a limit.
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 what the tool returns: recent buys from wallets with proven realized on-chain PnL, along with win-rate, SOL profit, a Guard safety check, and an execution hint. It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list' and does not name sibling tools to distinguish itself, but the resource and output scope are specific enough.
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 no guidance on when to use copy_signals versus alternatives like recent_events, track_record, or verify_claim. It provides a useful honesty caveat about EV not being proven, but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing.
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.
Most tools target distinct actions (build a swap, check a mint, verify a claim, fetch pricing), and the descriptions make boundaries clear. The main risk is mild confusion between check_mint/score_mint and copy_signals/recent_events, as both pairs sit in adjacent signal/safety territory, but they are not interchangeable.
Most names follow a verb_noun pattern (build_swap, check_mint, score_mint, verify_claim, track_record). guard_pricing and recent_events break that pattern slightly, but the naming remains predictable and readable overall.
Nine tools is well within the ideal range and each tool earns a place in the safety/signal/trading workflow. It is neither bloated with near-duplicates nor too thin to define a useful server.
The server covers a coherent lifecycle: discovery (recent_events/copy_signals), safety and validation (check_mint/score_mint/verify_claim), execution (build_swap), and outcome auditing (track_record). Minor gaps exist, such as an EVM swap builder to complete the Robinhood check path, but the core workflow is usable.