Prediction-market arbitrage scanner: markets whose outcome prices sum below $1, implying a risk-free edge before fees. Send { query?, minEdgePct? }. [x402 paid tool — price $0.005; POST /api/predict/arb]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Optional filter | |
| minEdgePct | No | Minimum edge %, default 1 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must bear full responsibility. It discloses the cost and HTTP method, but does not describe return format, side effects, or data source dependencies. With zero annotations, this is insufficient.
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 a single sentence plus a bracketed note, which is concise and front-loaded. However, the structure could be improved by separating the core functionality from technical details.
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?
Considering no output schema, no annotations, and two optional parameters, the description fails to explain the return format or how to interpret results. For a paid tool performing a non-trivial scan, this is incomplete.
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% (both parameters described in schema). The description redundantly repeats parameter names but adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema already provides. Default for minEdgePct is already in schema.
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 is a prediction-market arbitrage scanner with a specific condition (outcome prices sum below $1), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like predict_odds or predict_market by focusing on arbitrage opportunities.
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 lists parameters but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or scenarios where this tool is inappropriate.
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.