Verify an on-chain payment for PRO tier activation. On success, your agent is activated with PRO tier.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| network | Yes | The blockchain network (e.g., "ethereum", "base", "solana") | |
| tx_hash | Yes | The on-chain transaction hash of the activation payment | |
| agent_key | Yes | Your registered agent API key (starts with hp_) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries full responsibility. It does disclose a key side effect ('On success, your agent is activated with PRO tier'), but it does not mention failure behavior, idempotency, permission requirements, or whether the verification step is read-only or modifies state beyond activation. This leaves significant unknowns for an agent, especially for a tool that activates a paid tier.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and the second sentence adds the crucial outcome. Every word earns its place; there is no filler, redundancy, or overly technical jargon. It is a model of concise structure.
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?
The tool has 3 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description conveys the core purpose and success outcome but lacks guidance on when to use it, what happens on failure, or any prerequisites. For a relatively simple verify/activate tool, this is minimally adequate but leaves gaps, hence not a higher score.
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 input schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters (agent_key, tx_hash, network) with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning or examples beyond what the schema offers. Baseline for high schema coverage is 3, and there is no additional compensation needed.
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 uses a specific verb 'verify' and clearly identifies the resource: 'on-chain payment for PRO tier activation.' It also states the successful outcome ('your agent is activated with PRO tier'), which distinguishes it from likely read-only siblings like get_payment_activation or claim_free_pro_upgrade. The purpose is unambiguous and action-oriented.
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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prereqs, or mention sibling tools like get_payment_activation or claim_free_pro_upgrade. The context implies using it after an on-chain payment, but this is not directly stated, so the agent receives no actionable guidance on selection.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes (e.g., get_human vs get_human_profile differ by access level, get_listing vs get_listings by specificity). There is minor overlap between check_humanity_status and get_human (both return verification info), and the deprecated no-op claim_free_pro_upgrade adds slight clutter, but descriptions otherwise disambiguate well.
All 40 tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_listing, get_job_status, start_stream, submit_verdict). No camelCase or mixed conventions exist; even compound actions like make_listing_offer and leave_review fit the established pattern.
With 40 tools, this is far beyond the 16-25 'heavy' range and into the 'too many' category. While the platform covers a broad domain (hiring, listings, streams, escrow, activation), this many tools could be split into smaller focused servers for maintainability and agent selection clarity.
The surface covers the core lifecycle well: search, hire, pay, communicate, approve, review. However, there is no generic cancel_job tool for regular jobs (only stop_stream for streams) and no update_listing to edit an existing listing, leaving small but navigable gaps in lifecycle management.
