Register your wallet to get 10 FREE GCX credits ($1 value). New wallets only — enough to try upscale + enrich. Purchase more via GCX packs. FREE. (FREE)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| wallet | Yes | Your EVM wallet address (0x...) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses the reward (10 GCX credits), the restriction (new wallets only), and promotional context beyond annotations. Annotations don't cover these specifics, so the description adds 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 front-loaded but contains redundant promotional text at the end ('FREE. (FREE)'), which doesn't add value. Could be trimmed to a more concise statement.
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 single-parameter registration tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, eligibility, and benefit adequately. It doesn't explain success/failure responses, but that's a minor gap given the simplicity.
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 already covers the single parameter 'wallet' at 100% with description. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
Clearly states 'Register your wallet' with a specific verb and resource, and adds the purpose (get 10 FREE GCX credits). Distinguishes from siblings by being the only wallet registration tool.
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?
Specifies 'New wallets only' and suggests use for trying upscale and enrich, with alternative to purchase more via GCX packs. Could be more explicit about when not to use (e.g., existing wallets), but the constraint is clear.
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 have distinct purposes, but there is some overlap between get_artwork and get_artwork_oracle, which both retrieve artwork metadata with different detail levels, potentially causing confusion. Other tools like enrich_metadata and infuse_metadata also have related but distinct functions, but descriptions help clarify differences.
Tool names generally follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., check_balance, delete_asset, resize_image), with minor deviations like mockup_image (noun_verb) and get_artwork_oracle (longer compound name). Overall, the naming is readable and predictable, though not perfectly uniform.
With 27 tools, the count is borderline high for a single server, as it covers a broad range of functionalities from artwork retrieval to image processing and compliance. While each tool seems useful, the scope feels heavy and could overwhelm agents, suggesting it might be better split into more focused servers.
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for digital asset management, artwork analysis, and image processing, including CRUD operations (save_asset, get_asset, list_assets, delete_asset), metadata enrichment, compliance, and various image utilities. No obvious gaps are present for the stated domain.