Step 1 of autonomous self-registration - no API key required. Costs $0.01 USDC on Base (anti-spam fee, not a wallet-ownership proof). Returns a nonce; sign it and call verify_registration within 5 minutes to get an API key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| wallet_address | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses cost, blockchain network, time limit, and clarifies the fee is not a wallet-ownership proof. This is comprehensive for a registration step.
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?
Three concise sentences with no wasted words. Critical information is front-loaded: 'Step 1 of autonomous self-registration' followed by key constraints.
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?
For a simple registration step with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisite, cost, next step, and time limit. It is fully adequate for agent invocation.
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 coverage is 0%, but the single parameter wallet_address is implied by the context of registration and payment. The description could explicitly state it's the user's wallet address on Base, but the flow makes it understandable.
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 it is Step 1 of autonomous self-registration, with a specific verb (register) and resource (agent). It distinguishes itself from the sibling verify_registration by explicitly calling it step 1 and mentioning the follow-up step.
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?
Provides explicit guidance: no API key required, costs $0.01 USDC on Base (anti-spam fee), must sign the returned nonce and call verify_registration within 5 minutes. This tells the agent exactly when and how to use the tool.
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 action or resource. For example, compose_prompt assembles prompts, search_blocks searches, register_agent initiates registration. Even related tools like get_block and get_block_versions are clearly differentiated by purpose (current vs history).
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., compose_prompt, submit_block, verify_registration). No mixing of naming conventions, making it predictable for an agent.
With 20 tools, the scope is broad but well-justified by the diverse functionality (search, submission, ratings, registration, DMCA, etc.). It is on the higher end but not excessive for a full-featured platform.
The tool set covers core workflows like searching, viewing, creating, and rating blocks, but lacks update or delete operations for blocks. Also missing tools for managing user profiles or block editing, which are notable gaps.
