{"passport":{"unfragile":{"@version":"1.0","version":"2026-05","artifact":{"id":"tool_easyprompt","slug":"easyprompt","name":"EasyPrompt","type":"webapp","url":"https://www.easyprompt.xyz","page_url":"https://unfragile.ai/easyprompt","categories":["automation"],"tags":[],"pricing":{"model":"free","free":true,"starting_price":null},"status":"active","verified":false},"capabilities":[{"id":"tool_easyprompt__cap_0","uri":"capability://tool.use.integration.natural.language.to.blockchain.transaction.compilation","name":"natural-language-to-blockchain-transaction-compilation","description":"Converts plain English prompts into executable blockchain transactions by parsing user intent, identifying target smart contracts or protocols, and generating properly formatted transaction payloads. The system likely uses an LLM to interpret semantic meaning from natural language, maps identified operations to blockchain ABIs or protocol specifications, and outputs signed or unsigned transaction objects ready for submission to on-chain execution. This eliminates manual construction of contract call parameters, function selectors, and encoded arguments.","intents":["I want to swap tokens on a DEX without writing contract calls or understanding function signatures","Convert my English description of a DeFi action into a ready-to-sign blockchain transaction","Execute complex multi-step protocol interactions by describing them in plain language instead of chaining API calls"],"best_for":["Non-technical crypto users exploring DeFi without programming knowledge","Rapid prototypers testing blockchain workflows without writing Solidity or Web3.js","Users seeking to reduce cognitive load when interacting with unfamiliar protocols"],"limitations":["No documented support matrix for blockchains or protocols — unclear which chains (Ethereum, Polygon, Solana, etc.) are actually supported","LLM-generated transactions lack formal verification — no static analysis or simulation before submission to prevent fund loss","Abstraction hides critical transaction details (gas limits, slippage, contract addresses) from user review, increasing risk of unintended execution","No documented fallback or error recovery if LLM misinterprets intent or generates invalid transaction payloads"],"requires":["Web3 wallet connection (MetaMask, WalletConnect, or similar)","Active blockchain RPC endpoint access","Sufficient gas or native token balance for transaction fees","API key or authentication to EasyPrompt backend service (if required)"],"input_types":["natural language text (English prompts describing blockchain operations)","optional structured parameters (token addresses, amounts, slippage tolerance)"],"output_types":["unsigned transaction object (JSON with to, data, value fields)","signed transaction hash (if wallet integration auto-signs)","transaction receipt or confirmation status"],"categories":["tool-use-integration","automation-workflow"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_easyprompt__cap_1","uri":"capability://automation.workflow.defi.protocol.operation.orchestration","name":"defi-protocol-operation-orchestration","description":"Automates multi-step DeFi workflows (token swaps, liquidity provision, staking, borrowing) by decomposing high-level user intent into a sequence of smart contract interactions. The system likely maintains a registry of supported protocols (Uniswap, Aave, Curve, etc.), understands their state-dependent execution order, and chains transactions together with appropriate state validation between steps. This enables users to describe complex operations like 'swap ETH for USDC, then deposit into Aave' as a single natural language prompt.","intents":["Execute a multi-step DeFi strategy (e.g., swap → deposit → stake) with a single natural language command","Automate repetitive protocol interactions without writing orchestration scripts","Chain dependent transactions where output of one operation feeds into the next"],"best_for":["DeFi traders executing complex yield farming or arbitrage strategies","Users automating recurring protocol interactions (weekly deposits, rebalancing)","Non-developers seeking to execute multi-contract workflows without scripting"],"limitations":["Supported protocols not documented — unclear which DEXs, lending platforms, or yield aggregators are integrated","No visibility into transaction ordering or atomic execution guarantees — multi-step workflows may fail mid-sequence, leaving partial state","LLM-driven orchestration cannot guarantee optimal routing or gas efficiency across protocol combinations","No rollback or transaction reversal mechanism if intermediate steps fail or market conditions change"],"requires":["Connected Web3 wallet with sufficient balance for all transaction fees","Active blockchain RPC endpoint","Approval transactions for token spending (if swapping or depositing non-native assets)","Integration with EasyPrompt's protocol registry and execution engine"],"input_types":["natural language description of multi-step DeFi workflow","optional parameters (amounts, slippage, time limits)"],"output_types":["sequence of transaction hashes","workflow execution status and final state","error logs if any step fails"],"categories":["automation-workflow","tool-use-integration"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_easyprompt__cap_2","uri":"capability://code.generation.editing.intent.to.contract.parameter.mapping","name":"intent-to-contract-parameter-mapping","description":"Translates semantic user intent into properly encoded smart contract function parameters by parsing natural language, identifying the target contract function, and generating correctly formatted ABI-encoded arguments. The system maintains a mapping between human-readable operation descriptions (e.g., 'swap 1 ETH for USDC') and contract function signatures (e.g., 'swapExactETHForTokens(uint amountOutMin, address[] path, address to, uint deadline)'), then encodes parameters according to Solidity type specifications. This eliminates manual parameter construction and type conversion errors.","intents":["Describe what I want to do in English and have the system figure out the correct function signature and parameters","Avoid manual ABI lookup and parameter encoding when calling smart contracts","Ensure parameters are correctly typed and formatted for on-chain execution"],"best_for":["Non-technical users unfamiliar with Solidity types and ABI encoding","Developers prototyping blockchain interactions without writing Web3 boilerplate","Users reducing cognitive load when working with unfamiliar contract interfaces"],"limitations":["No documented mechanism for handling ambiguous intent — if multiple contract functions could match user description, unclear how system disambiguates","LLM parameter inference may misinterpret numeric values, addresses, or token decimals, leading to incorrect encoded arguments","No validation that encoded parameters are semantically correct (e.g., slippage tolerance within reasonable bounds, addresses are valid)","Abstraction prevents users from reviewing actual encoded parameters before submission, increasing risk of unintended execution"],"requires":["Access to contract ABIs for target protocols","Mapping registry between natural language descriptions and contract function signatures","Solidity ABI encoder (likely ethers.js or web3.js under the hood)"],"input_types":["natural language description of contract operation","optional numeric parameters (amounts, percentages)"],"output_types":["encoded function selector and parameters (hex string)","human-readable parameter breakdown for review"],"categories":["code-generation-editing","tool-use-integration"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_easyprompt__cap_3","uri":"capability://safety.moderation.blockchain.state.aware.transaction.validation","name":"blockchain-state-aware-transaction-validation","description":"Validates generated transactions against current blockchain state before submission by checking preconditions (sufficient balance, token approvals, contract state assumptions) and estimating execution outcomes. The system queries the blockchain for relevant state (account balances, allowances, contract variables), simulates transaction execution (likely via eth_call or similar), and flags potential failures or unexpected outcomes. This prevents submission of transactions that would revert on-chain, saving gas fees and reducing failed execution attempts.","intents":["Verify that my transaction will succeed before paying gas fees","Check that I have sufficient balance and approvals for the operation I'm describing","Simulate transaction execution to see expected output (e.g., how many tokens I'll receive)"],"best_for":["Users wanting to avoid wasted gas on failed transactions","DeFi traders needing to preview swap output or slippage before committing","Non-technical users unfamiliar with blockchain failure modes"],"limitations":["Simulation accuracy depends on RPC node state — may not reflect pending mempool transactions or MEV reordering","No documented handling of time-dependent state (e.g., oracle prices, time-locked contracts) that may change between validation and actual submission","Validation cannot guarantee transaction success if blockchain state changes between check and execution (race condition)","No protection against sandwich attacks or MEV extraction even if transaction is validated as executable"],"requires":["Access to blockchain RPC endpoint with eth_call support","Current blockchain state (balances, allowances, contract state)","Transaction simulation engine (likely ethers.js or web3.py)"],"input_types":["unsigned transaction object","current blockchain state snapshot"],"output_types":["validation status (pass/fail)","simulated execution result (e.g., token amounts received)","error messages if preconditions not met","gas estimate"],"categories":["safety-moderation","automation-workflow"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_easyprompt__cap_4","uri":"capability://tool.use.integration.wallet.integration.and.transaction.signing","name":"wallet-integration-and-transaction-signing","description":"Integrates with Web3 wallet providers (MetaMask, WalletConnect, Ledger, etc.) to request user signatures for generated transactions without exposing private keys to the EasyPrompt backend. The system constructs unsigned transaction objects, passes them to the wallet provider's signing interface, and receives signed transactions ready for blockchain submission. This maintains wallet security by keeping key material isolated while enabling seamless transaction execution flow.","intents":["Sign blockchain transactions using my existing wallet without exposing private keys","Connect my MetaMask or WalletConnect wallet to EasyPrompt and execute transactions","Maintain custody of my assets while using EasyPrompt to generate and sign transactions"],"best_for":["Users with existing Web3 wallets (MetaMask, Ledger, Trezor) seeking to maintain key custody","DeFi users requiring hardware wallet support for security","Teams integrating EasyPrompt into wallet-aware applications"],"limitations":["No documented support for specific wallet providers — unclear which wallets (MetaMask, WalletConnect, Ledger, Trezor) are actually integrated","Wallet integration may not support all transaction types (e.g., EIP-1559 dynamic fees, typed transactions) depending on wallet provider capabilities","User must manually approve each transaction in wallet UI — no batch signing or automated approval workflows documented","No fallback if wallet connection drops mid-transaction or user rejects signature request"],"requires":["Installed Web3 wallet extension or mobile wallet with WalletConnect support","Active wallet connection to EasyPrompt application","User approval for each transaction signature"],"input_types":["unsigned transaction object (to, data, value, gas, gasPrice/maxFeePerGas)","wallet provider instance (MetaMask, WalletConnect, etc.)"],"output_types":["signed transaction (raw hex string)","transaction hash after submission","signature confirmation from wallet"],"categories":["tool-use-integration","safety-moderation"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_easyprompt__cap_5","uri":"capability://search.retrieval.natural.language.blockchain.query.execution","name":"natural-language-blockchain-query-execution","description":"Executes read-only blockchain queries (balance checks, contract state inspection, transaction history) based on natural language descriptions without requiring users to write Web3 code or understand contract ABIs. The system parses user intent, identifies the relevant contract function or blockchain data source, constructs the appropriate RPC call (eth_call, eth_getBalance, etc.), and returns human-readable results. This enables users to inspect blockchain state and gather information needed for transaction decisions using plain English.","intents":["Check my token balance or ETH balance without using a block explorer","Query contract state (e.g., 'what's my stake in this protocol?') using natural language","Gather information about transactions or addresses to inform my next action"],"best_for":["Non-technical users wanting to inspect blockchain state without block explorer navigation","DeFi users gathering information before executing transactions","Developers prototyping blockchain queries without writing Web3 boilerplate"],"limitations":["Query scope not documented — unclear which contract functions and blockchain data sources are queryable","No caching or indexing mentioned — queries may be slow for complex state inspection or historical data","LLM-driven query generation may misinterpret user intent, leading to incorrect or irrelevant results","No support for complex queries (e.g., cross-contract state aggregation, time-series analysis) that would require indexing infrastructure"],"requires":["Access to blockchain RPC endpoint","Contract ABIs for queried contracts","Connected wallet (optional, for user-specific queries like balance checks)"],"input_types":["natural language query (e.g., 'what's my USDC balance?')","optional parameters (addresses, contract names)"],"output_types":["human-readable query result (e.g., '5.23 USDC')","structured data (JSON with balances, state variables)","error message if query cannot be executed"],"categories":["search-retrieval","data-processing-analysis"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_easyprompt__cap_6","uri":"capability://data.processing.analysis.gas.optimization.and.cost.estimation","name":"gas-optimization-and-cost-estimation","description":"Estimates transaction gas costs and suggests optimizations to reduce fees by analyzing generated transactions and comparing alternative execution paths. The system calculates gas requirements based on transaction complexity, current network conditions (gas price, base fee), and provides cost estimates in fiat currency. It may also suggest optimizations like batching operations, using different protocols, or timing transactions for lower gas periods. This helps users understand and minimize the financial cost of blockchain interactions.","intents":["Estimate how much this transaction will cost in gas fees before I submit it","Understand why a transaction is expensive and get suggestions to reduce costs","Compare gas costs across different execution paths (e.g., different DEXs or protocols)"],"best_for":["Cost-conscious DeFi users wanting to minimize transaction fees","Users on high-fee networks (Ethereum mainnet) seeking optimization strategies","Developers building cost-aware blockchain applications"],"limitations":["Gas estimates may be inaccurate if network conditions change between estimation and actual submission","No documented mechanism for handling EIP-1559 dynamic fees or priority fee optimization","Optimization suggestions may not account for slippage or price impact of alternative execution paths","Fiat cost conversion depends on external price feeds — may be stale or inaccurate"],"requires":["Access to blockchain RPC endpoint for gas price queries","Current network gas price data (base fee, priority fees)","Fiat exchange rate data for cost conversion (optional)"],"input_types":["unsigned transaction object","current network gas price conditions"],"output_types":["gas estimate (in gwei or wei)","fiat cost estimate (USD, EUR, etc.)","optimization suggestions","comparison of alternative execution paths"],"categories":["data-processing-analysis","automation-workflow"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_easyprompt__cap_7","uri":"capability://automation.workflow.multi.chain.transaction.routing","name":"multi-chain-transaction-routing","description":"Routes transactions across multiple blockchains (Ethereum, Polygon, Arbitrum, Optimism, Solana, etc.) by identifying the optimal chain for a given operation based on factors like gas costs, liquidity, and protocol availability. The system maintains a registry of supported chains and protocols, evaluates execution costs and outcomes across chains, and routes the transaction to the most efficient option. This enables users to execute operations on the cheapest or fastest chain without manually evaluating cross-chain options.","intents":["Execute my transaction on the cheapest blockchain available for this operation","Automatically route my swap to the chain with the best liquidity or price","Use Polygon instead of Ethereum if it's significantly cheaper, without manually switching networks"],"best_for":["Cost-sensitive DeFi users seeking to minimize transaction fees across chains","Traders wanting to execute on the chain with best liquidity or prices","Users managing assets across multiple blockchains"],"limitations":["Supported chains not documented — unclear which blockchains are actually integrated","Cross-chain routing may require bridge transactions with additional fees and latency not accounted for in cost estimates","Liquidity and prices vary across chains — routing decision may become suboptimal if market conditions change between evaluation and execution","No documented handling of wrapped or synthetic assets that may have different prices across chains"],"requires":["Connected wallets on multiple blockchains","RPC endpoints for each supported chain","Access to liquidity and price data across chains","Bridge infrastructure if cross-chain transfers are needed"],"input_types":["natural language operation description","optional chain preferences or constraints"],"output_types":["recommended chain and execution path","cost and outcome comparison across chains","transaction routed to optimal chain"],"categories":["automation-workflow","planning-reasoning"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_easyprompt__cap_8","uri":"capability://search.retrieval.transaction.history.and.activity.tracking","name":"transaction-history-and-activity-tracking","description":"Tracks and displays user transaction history and blockchain activity in a human-readable format, aggregating transactions across multiple chains and protocols. The system queries blockchain explorers or indexing services, associates transactions with user intent (e.g., 'swapped ETH for USDC'), and presents activity in a timeline or dashboard view. This provides users with a clear record of their blockchain interactions without requiring manual block explorer navigation.","intents":["See a history of all my blockchain transactions in one place","Track my DeFi activity across multiple chains and protocols","Understand what transactions I've executed and their outcomes"],"best_for":["DeFi users managing activity across multiple chains","Users wanting a consolidated view of blockchain interactions","Developers building activity dashboards for blockchain applications"],"limitations":["Activity tracking depends on indexing service availability — may lag behind real-time blockchain state","No documented support for private transactions or privacy-preserving protocols","Transaction interpretation relies on LLM understanding of contract interactions — may misclassify or misinterpret complex operations","No export or reporting features documented for tax or audit purposes"],"requires":["Connected wallet(s)","Access to blockchain indexing service (The Graph, Etherscan API, etc.)","Transaction history data from blockchain"],"input_types":["wallet address(es)","optional date range or filter criteria"],"output_types":["transaction history timeline","activity dashboard with summaries","human-readable transaction descriptions","aggregated statistics (total volume, fees paid, etc.)"],"categories":["search-retrieval","data-processing-analysis"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0}],"trust":{"score":37,"verified":false,"data_access_risk":"high","permissions":["Web3 wallet connection (MetaMask, WalletConnect, or similar)","Active blockchain RPC endpoint access","Sufficient gas or native token balance for transaction fees","API key or authentication to EasyPrompt backend service (if required)","Connected Web3 wallet with sufficient balance for all transaction fees","Active blockchain RPC endpoint","Approval transactions for token spending (if swapping or depositing non-native assets)","Integration with EasyPrompt's protocol registry and execution engine","Access to contract ABIs for target protocols","Mapping registry between natural language descriptions and contract function signatures"],"failure_modes":["No documented support matrix for blockchains or protocols — unclear which chains (Ethereum, Polygon, Solana, etc.) are actually supported","LLM-generated transactions lack formal verification — no static analysis or simulation before submission to prevent fund loss","Abstraction hides critical transaction details (gas limits, slippage, contract addresses) from user review, increasing risk of unintended execution","No documented fallback or error recovery if LLM misinterprets intent or generates invalid transaction payloads","Supported protocols not documented — unclear which DEXs, lending platforms, or yield aggregators are integrated","No visibility into transaction ordering or atomic execution guarantees — multi-step workflows may fail mid-sequence, leaving partial state","LLM-driven orchestration cannot guarantee optimal routing or gas efficiency across protocol combinations","No rollback or transaction reversal mechanism if intermediate steps fail or market conditions change","No documented mechanism for handling ambiguous intent — if multiple contract functions could match user description, unclear how system disambiguates","LLM parameter inference may misinterpret numeric values, addresses, or token decimals, leading to incorrect encoded arguments","builder identity is not verified yet","no observed match outcomes yet"],"rank_breakdown":{"adoption":0.2833333333333333,"quality":0.63,"ecosystem":0.15000000000000002,"match_graph":0.25,"freshness":0.75,"weights":{"adoption":0.25,"quality":0.25,"ecosystem":0.1,"match_graph":0.35,"freshness":0.05}},"observed_outcomes":{"matches":0,"success_rate":0,"avg_confidence":0,"top_intents":[],"last_matched_at":null},"maintenance":{"status":"active","updated_at":"2026-05-24T12:16:30.283Z","last_scraped_at":"2026-04-05T13:23:42.562Z","last_commit":null},"community":{"stars":null,"forks":null,"weekly_downloads":null,"model_downloads":null,"model_likes":null}},"distribution":{"claim_url":"https://unfragile.ai/submit?claim=easyprompt","compare_url":"https://unfragile.ai/compare?artifact=easyprompt"}},"signature":"DIkvK5MVC7KO/Ai58vVGGbZpcbvHWJDfp2dwCWNMyiXfmrpBNbGSiliyKlREwInj/pOQpTzp8yu4yMLjlDEvAQ==","signedAt":"2026-06-22T19:47:32.496Z","signedBy":"unfragile.ai","version":1},"_links":{"self":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/passport/easyprompt","artifact":"https://unfragile.ai/easyprompt","verify":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/verify?slug=easyprompt","publicKey":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/trust-passport-public-key","spec":"https://unfragile.ai/trust","schema":"https://unfragile.ai/schema.json","docs":"https://unfragile.ai/docs"}}