anchor_hashAnchor a 32-byte hash to Base + Solana mainnet in parallel. Returns both tx URLs as cryptographic proof of when the hash existed. $0.005 USDC.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | Arbitrary JSON to be canonicalized + SHA-256'd by the server. Mutually exclusive with `hash`. | |
| hash | No | Pre-computed 32-byte hex hash (64 chars, no 0x prefix). Mutually exclusive with `data`. | |
| note | No | Optional 200-char note included in the response (not on-chain). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description's on-chain write behavior is consistent. It adds value beyond annotations by disclosing the $0.005 USDC cost, the parallel Base+Solana execution, and the return of transaction URLs.
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 exactly two sentences, front-loading the core action and then adding output verification and cost. No wasted words; every element serves a purpose.
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 description covers the tool's purpose, key behavior, output (tx URLs), and cost, which is sufficient given the absence of an output schema and the presence of full schema parameter documentation. It could be more explicit about response shape, but the essential context is present.
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?
All three parameters are already fully described in the schema with 100% coverage, including constraints like mutual exclusivity, canonicalization, and maxLength. The description only adds '32-byte hash' context, which does not significantly extend parameter understanding.
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 ('Anchor') with a clear resource ('32-byte hash') and destinations ('Base + Solana mainnet'). It also states the output ('tx URLs as cryptographic proof'), which clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like decode_tx or resolve_name.
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 makes the use case clear: proving when a hash existed via on-chain anchor. It does not name alternative tools or provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is enough for an agent to understand when this tool is appropriate.
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 clearly distinct function — anchoring, decoding, wallet intelligence, entertainment, etc. Even similar tools like decode_calldata vs decode_tx and intel_wallet vs screen_wallet are precisely separated by descriptions.
Most names follow a verb_noun pattern (anchor_hash, decode_calldata), but there are exceptions like aura_read (noun_verb), intel_wallet (noun_noun), and ledger_report (ambiguous). This mixed convention is readable but not fully consistent.
18 tools is slightly above the ideal range but not overwhelming. Each tool serves a specific purpose, and the count feels reasonable for the broad set of utilities offered.
The core utilities (anchoring, wallet intelligence, ledger accounting) are well-covered without obvious dead ends. Some domain-specific workflows could be expanded (e.g., verifying anchors), but the existing tools provide complete standalone operations.