Perp-vs-spot basis for a coin: mark price vs spot oracle, basis %, annualized carry, and contango/backwardation signal. Send { coin }. Basis-trade and cash-and-carry signal. [x402 paid tool — price $0.005; POST /api/perps/basis]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| coin | Yes | Perp symbol, e.g. ETH |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is paid (price $0.005) and uses a POST endpoint, which adds useful behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly state it is read-only, non-destructive, or what side effects (if any) exist. The nature suggests safe computation, but lacks explicit safety statements.
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, with three sentences: first defines purpose, second provides usage instruction, third adds pricing and API details. No fluff, and the most important information is front-loaded.
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?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (basis %, annualized carry, signal) and its use cases. It lacks explicit output structure but compensates with clear listing. Pricing and endpoint are included.
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% (only one parameter 'coin' described). The description adds 'Send { coin }' which echoes the schema description but does not add additional semantics like formats or constraints. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameter clearly.
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 computes perp-vs-spot basis for a coin, including mark price vs spot oracle, basis %, annualized carry, and contango/backwardation signal. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like perps_funding (funding rate) and perps_oi (open interest).
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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., perps_funding_arb or rh_basis). It only says 'Send { coin }' and mentions basis-trade and cash-and-carry signals, but no comparative context.
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.