Is this chain alive: TVL trend over 1y/6m/90d/30d. Facts and flags only, never advice. Free tier: 3 calls per hour per IP, shared with the website; unlimited access costs $0.003 per call over x402 at /v1/chain
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | Yes | Chain name as used by DefiLlama |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description takes on transparency duties. It discloses that output is 'Facts and flags only, never advice', which sets expectations for output tone. It also reveals cost/rate-limit behavior. However, it does not describe what 'flags' means, how errors are handled, or the exact response structure.
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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The pricing/limit info is useful context and not excessive. Slight lack of structural clarity (all in one run-on sentence) but overall efficient.
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 is simple (one parameter, no output schema). The description covers the main purpose, output philosophy, and access limits. However, without an output schema, it would benefit from a brief note on expected response format or example values, which is a moderate gap.
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 single parameter 'chain' is fully described in the schema as 'Chain name as used by DefiLlama', giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no further parameter details, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
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 indicates the tool checks chain liveness via TVL trends over multiple periods ('Is this chain alive: TVL trend over 1y/6m/90d/30d'). This distinct purpose separates it from siblings like exit_cost or pool. The phrasing is slightly informal, but the verb+resource is identifiable.
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 practical usage context: free tier rate limits, shared quota with website, and paid access via x402. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention scenarios where it should not be used.
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 research area: chain health, exit cost, known issues, specific token launch history, live launch feed, and pool safety. Even the related 'launch' and 'launches' are clearly differentiated by singular vs. feed context.
Names are short but inconsistent: 'exit_cost' uses an underscore while others are single words, and there's no consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., 'known' is an adjective, 'chain' is a noun). This creates minor predictability issues.
With 6 tools, the set is well-scoped for a niche research service. Each tool earns its place without overwhelming the surface.
The domain of pre-investment checks is reasonably covered across chains, exits, known pitfalls, pump.fun launches, and pools. Minor gaps exist such as no general token safety check or exit cost for non-Solana chains, but these are workable.