| Ecosystem | 0 | 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Paid |
| Capabilities | 9 decomposed | 14 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
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.
Unique: Bridges LLM reasoning with blockchain execution by mapping natural language intent directly to contract ABIs and protocol specifications, rather than requiring users to manually construct Web3.js calls or understand Solidity function signatures.
vs alternatives: Reduces friction compared to traditional Web3 libraries (ethers.js, web3.py) by eliminating the need to learn contract ABIs, function selectors, and parameter encoding, though at the cost of transparency and formal verification.
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.
Unique: Chains multiple smart contract calls into a single logical workflow by understanding protocol dependencies and state transitions, rather than requiring users to manually sequence transactions or use lower-level orchestration frameworks.
vs alternatives: Simpler than building custom orchestration with Hardhat or Brownie, but lacks the formal verification and gas optimization that specialized DeFi routers (1inch, Paraswap) provide through algorithmic routing.
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.
Unique: Automatically maps natural language intent to contract function signatures and generates properly encoded parameters, eliminating manual ABI lookup and Solidity type conversion that typically requires developer expertise.
vs alternatives: More accessible than manual Web3.js parameter construction, but less transparent than explicit parameter specification in code, creating a tradeoff between ease-of-use and auditability.
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.
Unique: Proactively simulates transaction execution against current blockchain state before submission, catching precondition failures and unexpected outcomes that would otherwise result in wasted gas or failed operations.
vs alternatives: More user-friendly than manually checking balances and allowances in a block explorer, but less comprehensive than formal verification tools (Certora, Mythril) that analyze contract code for logical flaws.
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.
Unique: Maintains wallet security by delegating transaction signing to external wallet providers rather than handling key material, while still enabling seamless transaction generation and execution flow.
vs alternatives: More secure than in-app key management, but requires users to have pre-existing wallet setup and manually approve each transaction, unlike centralized platforms that can batch or automate approvals.
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.
Unique: Translates natural language queries into blockchain RPC calls and contract reads, eliminating the need for users to understand contract ABIs or write Web3 code for state inspection.
vs alternatives: More accessible than block explorers or Web3 libraries for casual queries, but less comprehensive than specialized blockchain indexing services (The Graph, Alchemy) for complex or historical data.
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.
Unique: Proactively estimates and optimizes gas costs by analyzing transaction complexity and suggesting alternative execution paths, rather than just showing final gas estimates after transaction construction.
vs alternatives: More user-friendly than manually checking gas prices on block explorers, but less sophisticated than specialized gas optimization tools (MEV-aware routers, batch transaction services) that can achieve significant savings through advanced techniques.
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.
Unique: Automatically evaluates and routes transactions across multiple blockchains based on cost and liquidity, rather than requiring users to manually switch networks or compare chain-specific options.
vs alternatives: More convenient than manually evaluating chains, but less comprehensive than specialized cross-chain routers (Across, Connext) that optimize for speed and security in addition to cost.
+1 more capabilities
Automatically loads and parses documents from diverse sources (PDFs, Word docs, HTML, Markdown, code files, databases) into a unified in-memory representation using format-specific loaders and node-based document abstractions. Each document is decomposed into Document objects containing metadata, content, and relationships, enabling downstream processing without format-specific handling in application code.
Unique: Provides a unified loader abstraction (BaseReader interface) that normalizes 100+ data source connectors into a single Document/Node API, eliminating format-specific branching logic in application code. Loaders are composable and chainable, allowing sequential transformations (e.g., load → split → extract metadata → embed).
vs alternatives: Broader out-of-the-box loader coverage than LangChain's document loaders and more structured node-based decomposition than raw text splitting, reducing boilerplate for multi-source RAG pipelines.
Splits documents into semantically coherent chunks using multiple strategies (character-based, token-aware, recursive, semantic) with configurable overlap and chunk size. Preserves document hierarchy and metadata through a node tree structure, enabling retrieval systems to maintain context relationships and enable hierarchical re-ranking or parent-document retrieval patterns.
Unique: Implements a node-tree abstraction that preserves document hierarchy and enables parent-document retrieval patterns. Supports multiple splitting strategies (recursive, semantic, code-aware) with pluggable custom splitters, and automatically propagates metadata through the node tree.
vs alternatives: More sophisticated than LangChain's text splitters because it preserves hierarchical relationships and supports semantic splitting; better for complex document structures than simple character-based splitting.
LlamaIndex scores higher at 40/100 vs EasyPrompt at 38/100. However, EasyPrompt offers a free tier which may be better for getting started.
Need something different?
Search the match graph →© 2026 Unfragile. Stronger through disorder.
Processes documents containing mixed content (text, images, tables, code) by extracting and understanding each modality separately, then synthesizing information across modalities. Uses vision models for image understanding, specialized parsers for tables and code, and integrates results into a unified document representation for retrieval and generation.
Unique: Integrates vision models, table parsers, and code extractors into a unified multi-modal document processing pipeline that synthesizes information across modalities. Preserves modality-specific structure (table schemas, code formatting) while enabling cross-modal retrieval and generation.
vs alternatives: More comprehensive multi-modal support than text-only RAG; built-in vision integration reduces boilerplate for document understanding compared to manual vision API calls.
Enables streaming of LLM responses token-by-token and real-time retrieval updates, allowing applications to display partial results as they become available. Supports streaming from retrieval (progressive document discovery) and generation (token-by-token output) with backpressure handling and cancellation support for responsive user experiences.
Unique: Provides first-class streaming support for both retrieval and generation with automatic backpressure handling and cancellation. Enables progressive result display without custom async/streaming code in application layer.
vs alternatives: More integrated streaming support than manual LLM API streaming; built-in retrieval streaming and backpressure handling reduce complexity compared to custom streaming implementations.
Tracks API costs for LLM calls, embeddings, and other operations with per-query and per-session cost attribution. Provides cost optimization recommendations (e.g., batch processing, model selection, caching) and enables cost-aware query planning to balance quality and expense. Integrates with multiple LLM providers to normalize cost tracking across models.
Unique: Provides automatic cost tracking across multiple LLM providers with per-query attribution and cost optimization recommendations. Integrates with query execution to enable cost-aware planning without manual cost calculation.
vs alternatives: More integrated cost tracking than manual API billing review; built-in optimization recommendations reduce guesswork for cost reduction.
Enables building custom RAG pipelines by composing modular components (retrievers, synthesizers, agents, tools) through a declarative or programmatic API. Supports complex workflows with branching, loops, and conditional logic, with automatic dependency resolution and execution optimization. Pipelines are reusable, testable, and can be deployed as APIs or batch jobs.
Unique: Provides a flexible pipeline composition API supporting both declarative and programmatic definitions, with automatic dependency resolution and execution optimization. Enables complex workflows with branching and conditional logic without custom orchestration code.
vs alternatives: More flexible pipeline composition than fixed RAG architectures; better workflow support than manual component chaining.
Generates embeddings for documents/nodes using pluggable embedding providers (OpenAI, Hugging Face, local models) and stores them in a unified vector store interface that abstracts over multiple backends (Pinecone, Weaviate, Milvus, FAISS, Chroma, etc.). The abstraction layer enables switching vector stores without changing application code, and handles batching, retry logic, and metadata indexing.
Unique: Provides a unified VectorStore interface that abstracts 10+ vector database backends, enabling zero-code switching between providers. Handles embedding batching, retry logic, and metadata propagation automatically. Supports both cloud and local embedding models through a pluggable EmbedModel interface.
vs alternatives: Broader vector store coverage and more seamless provider switching than LangChain's vectorstore integrations; better abstraction consistency across backends than using raw vector store SDKs directly.
Retrieves semantically similar documents from vector stores using embedding-based similarity search, with optional re-ranking, filtering, and fusion strategies (hybrid search combining dense and sparse retrieval). Supports multiple retrieval modes (similarity, MMR, fusion) and enables custom retrieval logic through a pluggable Retriever interface that can combine multiple strategies.
Unique: Implements a pluggable Retriever abstraction supporting multiple retrieval strategies (similarity, MMR, fusion, custom) that can be composed and chained. Built-in support for re-ranking via LLM or cross-encoder, and hybrid search combining dense and sparse retrieval without custom integration code.
vs alternatives: More flexible retrieval composition than LangChain's retrievers; built-in re-ranking and fusion strategies reduce boilerplate for advanced retrieval pipelines.
+6 more capabilities