Recommended max slippage for a planned swap based on live price impact plus a buffer, with a rating. Send { chain, tokenIn, tokenOut, amountIn }. Avoid failed txns and overpaying on slippage. [x402 paid tool — price $0.005; POST /api/exec/slippage]
| 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?
No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It discloses cost ($0.005) and API endpoint, and describes it as a paid tool. This adds valuable behavioral context beyond typical tool descriptions.
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 two sentences plus one metadata line, all front-loaded with essential information. No unnecessary words.
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?
Missing output schema; description mentions a 'rating' but does not explain output format or fields. Adequate for a simple input tool but leaves uncertainty about return value structure.
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% with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description reiterates the parameter list but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting baseline.
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 the tool recommends max slippage based on live price impact and buffer. It specifies the input format and resource, though does not differentiate from sibling tools like exec_quote or exec_gas.
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 advises to 'avoid failed txns and overpaying', giving an implied use case. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance.
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.