Cross-venue arbitrage: prices a tokenized stock across every liquid Robinhood Chain pool/DEX and returns the high/low and spread %. Send { ticker, minLiquidityUsd? }. Spot mispricings between venues for on-chain arb agents. [x402 paid tool — price $0.005; POST /api/rh/arb]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ticker | Yes | Stock/ETF ticker | |
| minLiquidityUsd | No | Ignore pools below this liquidity (default 3000) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses pricing ($0.005) and endpoint, but fails to specify side effects, rate limits, auth requirements, or idempotency. As a query tool, it implies read-only behavior but does not explicitly state it.
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?
Two concise sentences plus a bracketed note. Purpose is front-loaded immediately. Every sentence adds value with no fluff. Excellent structure.
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 no output schema and two simple parameters, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (high/low/spread). It lacks error handling or edge-case details, but is sufficient for a straightforward pricing tool.
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 both parameters. Description adds minimal value by summarizing parameters in a 'Send {}' format, but mostly repeats schema info. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description clearly states the tool's purpose: cross-venue arbitrage for tokenized stocks on Robinhood Chain, identifying mispricings and returning high/low/spread. The verb 'arbitrage' and resource 'tokenized stock across pools/DEX' are specific, distinguishing it from siblings like rh_basis or rh_dislocation.
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 mentions required and optional parameters ('Send { ticker, minLiquidityUsd? }') and states it's for 'on-chain arb agents', but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., rh_basis, rh_dislocation) or mention 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.