Save an image or data to your personal wallet storage. 100MB free per wallet, 500 assets max. ($0.10 / 1 GCX)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | Unique name for this asset (e.g., 'my-landscape', 'pipeline-001') | |
| data | Yes | Base64-encoded data (image, JSON, etc.) — max 10MB | |
| wallet | Yes | Your EVM wallet address (0x...) | |
| metadata | No | Optional metadata JSON to store alongside | |
| content_type | No | MIME type | image/png |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a write (readOnlyHint=false), idempotent, and non-destructive. The description supplements with important behavioral constraints: storage quotas (100MB free, 500 asset max) and cost ($0.10/1 GCX). These go beyond annotations and help the agent understand limits and pricing.
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?
Three short sentences, all informative. The purpose is front-loaded, and the additional sentences provide concrete limits and cost without fluff. Every sentence earns its place.
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 description covers purpose, storage limits, and cost, which are key context for a save operation. With annotations present and schema covering parameters, it is adequate. It does not explain return values or overwrite behavior, but those are either inferable from idempotentHint or non-critical for a simple save tool.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description does not add parameter-specific detail beyond mentioning 'image or data' which maps loosely to the data parameter. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 verb ('Save') and resource ('personal wallet storage'), and identifies the payload ('image or data'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_asset, delete_asset, and list_assets by explicitly conveying a write/storage action.
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 usage (use this to store assets) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. No mention of sibling tools or conditions like 'for retrieval use get_asset'. Guidance is only implicit in the purpose statement.
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.