The Base EIP-3009 Settlement Tape: daily verifiable FLOOR on gasless x402-style USDC settlement on Base — tx count, volume, wash-suspect share (count + value), median payment, share of value >=$1, and chain coverage %. Methodology-versioned, receipts-backed. NOT total x402 volume — a lower bound with its blind spots disclosed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the result is a lower bound, derived from receipts, methodology-versioned, and blind spots are disclosed. It does not cover auth or rate limits, but the core behavior is transparent.
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 concise sentences, front-loading the core purpose and metrics. Every word adds value, with no redundancy. Perfectly structured for quick understanding.
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, the description explains the returned metrics and methodological provenance. It could mention output format or how to interpret chain coverage %, but is sufficient for a parameterless tool.
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?
There are no parameters, so the schema provides no meaning. The description does not need to add parameter details. Baseline 4 applies, as the description focuses on what the tool outputs instead.
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 tool provides a daily verifiable lower bound settlement tape for x402-style USDC on Base, listing specific metrics (tx count, volume, wash-suspect share, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying a niche focus on x402 settlement, not general stats.
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 includes 'NOT total x402 volume' and mentions blind spots, implying it's a cautious lower bound. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus sibling tools, leaving usage context largely implied.
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 have distinct purposes: agent_pulse for active agent counts, counterparty_risk for wallet risk scores, screen_wallet for sybil detection, etc. However, counterparty_risk and screen_wallet both analyze wallets, causing slight overlap that descriptions mitigate.
All tool names use snake_case, but they mix patterns: verb_noun (screen_wallet), noun_noun (index_stats), and compound nouns (real_agent_index). No consistent verb_noun pattern.
6 tools is a well-scoped set for an analytics server covering agents, wallet risk, and settlement data without being over or under.
Covers core aspects: macro metrics, per-wallet analysis, and settlement tapes. Missing a tool to list all known agents, but overall coverage is solid for transparency on AI agent activity.