Top movers on Robinhood Chain: biggest 24h gainers (or losers) among liquid pools, with price change, liquidity, and volume. Send { limit?, direction? }. Momentum radar for the Robinhood Chain market. [x402 paid tool — price $0.005; POST /api/rh/gainers]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results, default 10 (max 30) | |
| direction | No | "gainers" (default) or "losers" |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It reveals the tool is paid ($0.005) and the endpoint, but does not mention rate limits, side effects, or authentication requirements. This is adequate but not comprehensive.
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 brief (three sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes pricing and endpoint efficiently. However, it could be slightly more structured, e.g., separating usage hints.
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 the simple parameter set and no output schema, the description explains what data is returned (price change, liquidity, volume) and the market scope. It mentions paid status. Could add more on limitations (e.g., only liquid pools) but is nearly complete.
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. The description only adds a redundant note on sending parameters and aligns with the schema meaning. It does not add new semantic value beyond what the schema already 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 states it returns top movers (gainers/losers) on Robinhood Chain with specific metrics (price change, liquidity, volume). It clearly identifies the resource and distinguishes from sibling tools like rh_momentum or rh_gap_radar by focusing on 24h gainers/losers among liquid pools.
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 implies usage for momentum radar but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid, nor does it compare to alternatives. It provides context (paid tool, endpoint) but lacks exclusion criteria or prerequisites.
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.