Sandwich / MEV risk score for a planned swap, from price impact and trade size, with concrete mitigations (private RPC, tighter slippage, order splitting). Send { chain, tokenIn, tokenOut, amountIn }. Trade without getting sandwiched. [x402 paid tool — price $0.05; POST /api/exec/sandwich]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | No | Chain, default base | |
| tokenIn | Yes | 0x token to sell | |
| amountIn | Yes | Amount in smallest units | |
| tokenOut | Yes | 0x token to buy |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool provides a risk score and mitigations, and notes it is a paid tool costing $0.05. However, it does not explicitly state that it is read-only and does not execute trades, nor does it discuss authentication or rate limits.
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 concise and front-loaded with the key purpose. It includes usage instructions, the output type, and cost. The inclusion of 'Trade without getting sandwiched' is slightly redundant but not harmful.
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 the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the basic inputs and output concept. However, it lacks details on the exact format of the risk score or mitigations, which would be helpful for an agent to parse the result.
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 100%, so the description's parameter information adds little beyond the schema. It lists the parameters in a shorthand format but does not provide additional context or examples beyond what the schema already documents.
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 evaluates sandwich/MEV risk for a planned swap and provides concrete mitigations. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like exec_quote, exec_gas, and exec_slippage by focusing on risk scoring rather than execution or quoting.
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 specifies the required inputs (chain, tokenIn, tokenOut, amountIn) and implies the tool is used to assess sandwich risk before swapping. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like exec_quote for quoting or exec_slippage for slippage estimates.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools are organized by domain prefix (e.g., 'crypto_', 'rh_', 'snipe_'), which helps distinguish between areas. Within each domain, they serve distinct purposes, though some overlap between domains exists (e.g., price data appears in multiple groups). Overall, an agent can navigate effectively.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with a domain prefix and a verb_noun combination (e.g., 'compliance_risk', 'rh_stock', 'snipe_honeypot'). This makes the API predictable and easy to explore.
With 159 tools, the server is extremely large. While the broad scope of web3 and utility functions justifies many tools, the count is significantly above the typical range for a coherent toolkit, potentially overwhelming agents and increasing selection error.
The toolkit covers a wide range of web3 operations: crypto, DeFi, compliance, safety, scheduling, memory, etc. There are no obvious major gaps for its intended purpose, though some niche areas might be missing.