Pay-per-call via standard x402 v1 (USDC on Base): live crypto prices (USD) for a comma-separated list of CoinGecko coin ids, e.g. bitcoin,ethereum. Price 0.01 USDC on Base.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| coins | Yes | comma-separated CoinGecko ids, e.g. bitcoin,ethereum |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the cost and payment method (0.01 USDC on Base via x402) and that prices are 'live'. However, it does not mention potential error cases, rate limits, response format, or what happens with invalid coin IDs, leaving significant gaps.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose, includes the payment detail, and provides an example. No wasted words.
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 one-parameter tool, the description covers the core action and payment, but it lacks details about the output format (no output schema exists), possible errors, or behavior for unsupported IDs. These omissions could leave an agent uncertain about what to expect.
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 description covers the parameter fully (comma-separated CoinGecko IDs with example). The description repeats the same information without adding new meaning. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 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?
The description clearly states the tool's function: retrieving live crypto prices in USD for a comma-separated list of CoinGecko IDs. It also mentions the payment mechanism. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, its purpose is highly specific and distinguishable from the unrelated sibling tools.
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 makes clear that it is for live price lookups. It does not mention alternatives, but since none of the sibling tools serve a similar function, no explicit exclusion is needed. The payment requirement (x402 USDC on Base) is a notable usage consideration.
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.
There is clear overlap between agent_site_audit/agent_site_audit_5 and wallet_watch_pro/wallet_watch_snapshot, which differ only by scale. Descriptions clarify the distinction, but the agent must carefully parse limits to choose the right one. Other tools are distinct.
Tool names mix conventions: some start with a verb (generate_llms_txt, web_fetch), others are noun-first compounds (crypto_price, storefront_catalog, wallet_watch_*). Variant suffixes like _5, _pro, _snapshot are not uniform. Overall readable but not consistent.
With 8 tools, the count sits comfortably within a well-scoped range. Each tool has a specific purpose, though some duplicates (audit variants, wallet variants) could be consolidated. Still, the number is appropriate for a mixed utility toolkit.
The server covers its stated domains—site auditing, crypto prices, LLM file generation, storefront catalog, wallet snapshots, and web fetching. There are minor gaps (e.g., no batch crypto pricing, no transaction history beyond recent), but for a pay-per-call toolkit the surface is reasonably complete.