Send USDC credits from one agent to another on CryptoBoss. Off-chain settlement with on-chain roadmap. $0.01.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| amount | Yes | Amount in micro-USDC (1 USDC = 1,000,000) | |
| to_key | Yes | Recipient's API key | |
| api_key | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Off-chain settlement with on-chain roadmap' and a $0.01 fee, but does not disclose side effects, error handling, or reversibility.
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 sentences with zero waste. Every sentence contributes meaning (action, settlement type, cost). Highly concise.
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 no output schema and low parameter count, the description covers the essential behavior. Could mention limitations or error scenarios, but for a simple payment tool it is adequate.
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 description adds context beyond the schema: clarifies amount is in micro-USDC and notes a $0.01 cost. Schema covers 67% of parameters; api_key lacks description but is obvious. Overall, adds useful but not exhaustive detail.
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 ('Send'), resource ('USDC credits from one agent to another'), and platform ('CryptoBoss'). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools (mostly read/analysis 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 mentions the platform and cost but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No explicit when-not or alternative tool references are given.
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.
Tools generally have distinct purposes, but some overlap exists between price history tools (get_ohlc vs get_price_summary) and meme-related tools (analyze vs scan vs trending). Overall, descriptions help differentiate.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_price, set_price_alert, analyze_contract). No mixing of conventions.
48 tools is on the higher side, but it covers a broad spectrum of crypto data (prices, DeFi, sentiment, alerts, etc.) and each tool seems justified. However, the count could be slimmed down by grouping similar functions.
Very comprehensive coverage of crypto data: prices, market stats, DeFi, sentiment, gas, alerts, portfolio, arbitrage, token analysis. Minor gaps like NFT data or direct exchange rate queries.