Perp funding extremes: coins with the highest funding (crowded longs) and lowest/negative funding (crowded shorts) — squeeze and mean-reversion signals. Send { limit? }. Momentum & contrarian radar for perp traders. [x402 paid tool — price $0.005; POST /api/perps/movers]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max per side, default 10 (max 40) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations present, so description carries burden. It discloses the tool is paid ($0.005) and the HTTP method/endpoint. However, it does not explain data freshness, rate limits, or whether the tool is destructive.
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?
Three sentences that front-load the core purpose. Some extraneous information (payment details, endpoint) could be moved to annotations, but overall concise.
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 optional parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the output (coins with extreme funding). It could be more explicit about the response structure, but is adequate.
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 a clear description for the single parameter 'limit'. The description's 'Send { limit? }' adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides.
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 identifies perp funding extremes (crowded longs and shorts) for squeeze and mean-reversion signals. It is distinct from siblings like perps_funding which likely provides raw funding data, but does not explicitly differentiate.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Only implies usage as a momentum/contrarian radar for perp traders, but does not specify prerequisites or exclusions.
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.