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?
Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which are consistent with a registration operation. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying that this gives free credits ($1 value) and that it is free, helping the agent understand the outcome and side effects.
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 extremely concise (two short sentences) and front-loads the key information: action, reward, and constraint. Every phrase adds value without redundancy, earning top marks.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema) and the presence of informative annotations, the description adequately covers the essential context. It explains the credit reward and usage constraint, though it could briefly mention the expected result (e.g., wallet registered successfully) for full completeness.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the parameter 'wallet' is already documented as 'Your EVM wallet address (0x...)'. The description does not add further semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, warranting the baseline score of 3.
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?
Description explicitly states the tool registers a wallet to receive free credits, distinguishing it from other tools in the sibling list. The verb 'register' combined with the resource 'wallet' and the specific reward (10 FREE GCX credits) makes the purpose unambiguous.
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 clearly states the constraint 'New wallets only' and provides context about using the credits for upscale and enrich. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., returning users) or mention alternatives for obtaining credits, which would improve guidance.
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 targets a distinct operation—artwork retrieval, image processing, asset management, watermarking, etc.—with clear descriptions that prevent confusion. Even similar tools like enrich_metadata and get_artwork_oracle are differentiated by depth and purpose.
Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., get_artwork, remove_background, register_hash). The few non-verb-starting names (compliance_manifest) are standard and do not break the overall pattern.
27 tools is slightly above the typical range but justifiable given the broad domain covering artwork access, image processing, and digital rights. Each tool serves a unique purpose without redundancy.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle: search, retrieve, analyze, edit, save, and verify assets. Gaps are minimal—e.g., no metadata deletion tool—but the core workflows are fully supported, and the inclusion of compliance and provenance tools adds value.