Venice Crypto RPC Proxy

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 discloses authentication options (x402 wallet auth no Venice account, API key) and how to list available networks via GET endpoint, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose what happens on errors, rate limits, response format, or any side effects. Given the zero annotation coverage, a 'proxy' tool safely implies read-only behavior but this is not explicitly confirmed, preventing a higher score.

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 compact 3 sentences that pack substantial information: the general purpose, network list method, specific supported chains, and auth options. Every sentence earns its place. Minor redundancy exists (networks listed twice), but the structure is efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose. Not quite a 5 due to the slight repetition of network names across sentences.

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?

With a proxy tool that has 3 parameters (one undocumented array type) and no output schema, the description provides the core capability and auth model but omits response format, error handling, and clear parameter semantics for rpc_params/rpc_method. The GET endpoint for listing networks is a helpful discovery mechanic. The description is adequate for basic use but leaves the agent to guess at parameter formats and return types, which is a meaningful gap for a tool where responses vary by RPC method.

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 only 33%, and the description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides. The description mentions the network naming convention ('base-mainnet' NOT just 'base') which is echoed in the schema's network field description, adding marginal value. But rpc_params (an array with no item schema) is completely undocumented in both schema and description, and rpc_method also lacks explanation of accepted values or format. With 67% of coverage missing, the description fails to compensate.

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 proxies JSON-RPC calls to supported blockchain networks with specific verbs (proxy, list) and concrete resources (eth_call, eth_blockNumber, specific network names). It explicitly lists example networks and distinguishes the general RPC proxy role. The 'Proxy a JSON-RPC call' verb+resource is specific and unambiguous, and the supported methods and networks are clearly enumerated.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does provide concrete examples of methods (eth_call, eth_blockNumber) and networks (base-mainnet, ethereum-mainnet, etc.), which implies usage context. However, there are no exclusions or explicit guidance about when NOT to use it, nor any mention of alternative tools for similar operations. Given the entirely different sibling tools (all non-crypto focused), the lack of explicit alternative guidance is somewhat mitigated, hence a 3.

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