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 declare readOnlyHint=false (write), destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds storage limits (100MB, 500 max) and cost, which are beyond annotations. No contradictions. However, it does not elaborate on behavioral traits like confirmation or error handling, and annotations carry most behavioral burden.
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?
Description is extremely concise: a single sentence plus a parenthetical cost note. No wasted words, all information is relevant and front-loaded. 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?
Given 5 parameters, some optional with nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers the main function and constraints (limits, cost). However, it does not mention return values or confirmation, which would be helpful for a save operation. Adequate but could be more complete with expected output.
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%, with all 5 parameters described in the schema. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what is already in the schema, so baseline 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?
Description clearly states 'Save an image or data to your personal wallet storage', specifying the verb 'save' and the resource 'image or data to personal wallet storage'. It includes constraints like 100MB free, 500 assets max, and cost, which further clarify the scope. Distinguishes from siblings like delete_asset, get_asset, and list_assets by being a write/storage operation.
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?
Description implies usage for storing images or data to wallet storage with limits. It does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or when not to use, but the context of personal wallet storage and constraints provides clear usage context. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, though the sibling list suggests alternatives for other operations.
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.