recent_exploitsRecent real-world web3 exploits from the live feed, with loss amounts, attack vectors and the Cybercentry service that addresses each. Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max incidents to return (default 10). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'live feed' and 'Free,' which give some context, but it does not disclose limitations, data freshness, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. The behavioral traits are only minimally addressed, and no safety or side-effect information is provided.
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 a single sentence that immediately states the core function and key output information. It is front-loaded with 'Recent real-world web3 exploits' and includes no filler or redundant details, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values, which it does by listing loss amounts, attack vectors, and the Cybercentry service. It also provides context via 'live feed' and 'Free.' It does not detail output format or error handling, but for a simple feed tool with a limit parameter, this is largely complete.
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 schema already fully documents the single 'limit' parameter with a clear description and default value. The tool description adds no further semantic detail about how limit affects results. With 100% schema coverage, the description does not need to compensate, and the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 returns 'recent real-world web3 exploits' with specific output fields (loss amounts, attack vectors, Cybercentry service). This is a specific verb+resource and clearly distinguishes it from the sibling verification tools, which focus on security verifications rather than exploit feeds.
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 implies a use case for accessing current exploit data via the live feed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions. The sibling tools are all verification-related, so the context suggests this is for retriving exploit intelligence, but explicit guidance is missing.
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 target distinct domains (token, media, AI agent, wallet, web app, code), but `base_token_verification` and `ethereum_token_verification` are closely related and could be confused despite chain-specific descriptions. The informational tools (`list_services`, `recent_exploits`) are clearly separate.
All tool names are lowercase snake_case, with the majority following a `[domain]_verification` pattern. The exceptions (`cyber_security_consultant`, `list_services`, `recent_exploits`) are still clear but deviate from the dominant suffix convention.
12 tools is a well-scoped size for a multi-domain verification service. Each tool represents a distinct service category, and the count feels appropriately comprehensive without being bloated.
The tool surface covers major verification needs across tokens, code, media, AI agents, wallets, web apps, private data, and quantum-safe encryption. The addition of `cyber_security_consultant`, `list_services`, and `recent_exploits` provides context and support, leaving no obvious dead ends for typical use cases.