Loading ToolBench
Interactive Web3 development environment with smart contract compilation, deployment, and AI assistance. Includes backend server and x402 payment facilitator.
This server has critical gaps across naming, descriptions, and schema definition. While 11 tools are nominally defined, most lack complete input parameter schemas visible in the code provided. Tool names are inconsistent in verb-action clarity (e.g., 'compile', 'deploy', 'ai', 'verify' are weak or domain-specific rather than following verb_noun conventions like 'compile_solidity', 'deploy_contract'). Descriptions are present but brevity is inconsistent, some are actionable (e.g., 'compile' at 65 chars) while others are vague (e.g., 'ai' at 140 chars with overloaded 'analysisType' enum). Critically, the source code shows route file references (e.g., 'server/src/routes/compile.ts') but the actual TypeScript route implementations are not provided, so parameter validation, error handling, and output schemas cannot be verified. Additionally, several tools are marked with IRREVERSIBLE risk (deploy, settle) yet lack confirmation/dry-run patterns in visible definitions. No evidence of auth/secret injection for sensitive operations like contract deployment.
AI-powered code suggestions, vulnerability detection, and optimization recommendations
Compile Solidity smart contracts to bytecode and ABI
Deploy compiled smart contracts to blockchain networks
Request testnet tokens from faucet for testing
Health check endpoint for monitoring server and chain connectivity status
Get facilitator information including supported chains, tokens, and configuration
Upload and manage files on IPFS for decentralized storage
Settle verified x402 micropayments on-chain using EIP-3009 transferWithAuthorization
Tool definitions inferred from package.json and Dockerfile, not from actual route implementations. Source code route files (e.g., server/src/routes/compile.ts) are referenced but not provided.
Parameter schemas incomplete or missing for most tools. Input objects specified (e.g., 'payment' as object for verify/settle) lack detailed field definitions, type constraints, and min/max bounds. No evidence of enum validation for constrained inputs like 'network', 'language', 'analysisType'.
| Scored | Grade | Overall | Spec posture | Rubric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-22 | F | 37 | 2026-07-28+ | v2 |
| 2026-03-09 | F | 48 | - | v1 |
List supported chains and tokens for x402 payments
Translate code between programming languages
Verify x402 micropayment authorization signatures and payment validity
Tool naming conventions inconsistent. Tools like 'ai', 'health', 'info' lack action verbs. 'ai' is especially vague, should be 'analyze_code' or 'suggest_code_improvements'. 'health' should be 'check_health' or 'get_health_status'. Weak names force LLMs to read full descriptions to understand intent.
No output schemas documented. Tools like 'compile', 'deploy', 'ai', 'faucet' lack visible response structure definitions. LLMs cannot predict downstream tool inputs or chain operations without documented return types.
Irreversible operations (deploy, settle) lack confirmation or dry-run support. No evidence of confirmation_before_execute pattern. High-stakes blockchain operations should require explicit user consent steps.
No error handling guidance visible. Route files not provided, so cannot verify recovery messages, error categorization (retryable/user-fixable/fatal), or actionable error responses. Agents need explicit recovery steps.
Security: No evidence of secret injection for sensitive operations. 'deploy' and 'settle' require private keys and RPC credentials, these should never be tool parameters. 'faucet' and 'ipfs' interact with external services requiring auth.
Parameter 'analysisType' (ai tool) is overloaded enum ('suggestions', 'vulnerabilities', 'optimization'). Description claims tool does all three, conflating three separate concerns. Should split into analyze_code_suggestions, detect_vulnerabilities, optimize_code, or at minimum, add sub-parameter for specific analysis request.
Parameter descriptions lack format/constraint details. Examples: 'code' params omit max length; 'network' param omits list of valid networks (Ethereum, Base, Arbitrum, etc.); 'rpcUrl' lacks format validation pattern; 'tokenAmount' (faucet) omits min/max bounds. LLMs will guess invalid values.
Tools like 'verify' and 'settle' accept complex nested objects (payment, paymentRequirements) without sub-field documentation. LLMs cannot construct valid payment objects without knowing required fields, types, constraints within those objects.