Retrieves a stored object by key, base64-encoded. Flat $0.01 per call. Objects over 4MB must be fetched via HTTP GET /retrieve instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | The key returned by store_object or PUT /store |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the base64 encoding, flat pricing per call, and the 4MB retrieval limitation. This is useful behavioral context, though it doesn't describe error behavior or authentication requirements.
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?
Two concise sentences deliver all essential information: what the tool does, output encoding, pricing, and a limitation with workaround. No filler or redundant content.
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 with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, output format, cost, and large-object alternative. It is near-complete, though it could clarify what happens for missing keys or failed retrievals.
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 baseline is 3. The schema already explains that 'key' is the key returned by store_object or PUT /store; the description adds no further parameter-specific semantics beyond restating 'by key'.
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 action ('Retrieves a stored object'), the resource ('by key'), and the output format ('base64-encoded'). This distinguishes it from the sibling store_object tool and network health 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 provides clear usage context: use this tool to retrieve objects by key, but objects over 4MB must be fetched via HTTP GET /retrieve instead. This explicit size-based exclusion gives practical guidance, though it doesn't mention scenarios where sibling tools would be preferred.
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.
Each tool is clearly distinguished by its operation type (network health, priority fee, store, retrieve) and, where applicable, the specific blockchain (Base, Ethereum, Solana). No two tools perform the same function on the same target, so an agent can select the correct tool without ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case. The first six tools use 'get_' plus a descriptive noun (network_health or recommended_priority_fee) followed by the chain name, while the storage tools use 'store_' and 'retrieve_' with 'object'. This predictable convention aids agent selection.
With 8 tools, the server is well-scoped. The six network-related tools cover three blockchains across two recurring operations, and the two storage tools provide minimal yet sufficient coverage. The count is within the ideal range and each tool earns its place.
The network health and fee recommendation tools fully cover their immediate purposes. For object storage, only store and retrieve are provided, lacking delete or list operations. While the core workflow (write and read) is functional, the absence of delete is a minor gap that could require workarounds.