Venice Crypto RPC Proxy

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description solely carries the burden. It mentions auth methods but omits behavioral details like idempotency, rate limits, whether operations are read-only or writable, and error handling. The agent lacks critical safety info.

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 efficient: two sentences covering purpose, example methods, network listing, and authentication. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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 three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers core purpose, networks, and auth but lacks return value details, error handling, and rate limit info. It's adequate for a simple proxy but incomplete for fully autonomous use.

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 description coverage is only 33% (only 'network' has a description). The description adds clarity about network IDs (full network id, NOT just 'base') and example methods, but doesn't elaborate on 'rpc_params' or 'rpc_method' beyond examples, leaving gaps.

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 proxies JSON-RPC calls to supported blockchains, gives concrete method examples (eth_call, eth_blockNumber), and lists network IDs. This distinguishes it from siblings like venice_chat, as it's the only crypto RPC tool.

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 tells how to list all available networks (GET endpoint) and mentions authentication methods (x402 wallet auth, API key). However, it doesn't explain when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., if other RPC tools exist) or provide exclusion criteria.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.