Ranks Robinhood Chain tokenized-stock perps by funding carry: Lighter funding APR per ticker plus the cross-venue spread vs Binance/Bybit/Hyperliquid (funding-capture edge). Send { limit? }. Find the richest funding to harvest for tokenized-equity funding-arb agents. [x402 paid tool — price $0.05; POST /api/rh/funding-arb]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max markets, default 15 (max 30) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description does not disclose behavioral traits such as auth requirements, rate limits, or whether tool is read-only. Mentions price and endpoint but not safety or side effects.
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?
Single paragraph with no wasted words, but includes minor extraneous details (price, endpoint) that could be separate. Efficient overall.
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?
No output schema; description lacks return format or explanation of ranking output. Jargon like 'funding-capture edge' not clarified. Incomplete for a specialized 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?
Only one parameter (limit) with 100% schema coverage; description only echoes 'Send { limit? }' without adding new meaning. 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 it ranks Robinhood Chain tokenized-stock perps by funding carry and cross-venue spread, distinguishing it from general perp tools like perps_funding_arb. Specific verb 'ranks' and resource 'tokenized-stock perps'.
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?
Implies use for finding richest funding for arbitrage agents, but does not explicitly state when to use versus siblings like perps_funding_arb or perps_funding. No exclusions or alternatives mentioned.
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.