Fast yes/no honeypot check for a token before buying: is it sellable, buy/sell tax, and whether the creator has deployed honeypots before. Send { address, chain? }. Cheap, instant pre-trade gate against unsellable scam tokens. [x402 paid tool — price $0.005; POST /api/snipe/honeypot]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | No | EVM chain, default base | |
| address | Yes | 0x token contract address |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses it is a paid tool ($0.005), instant, and checks multiple honeypot indicators. No destructive behavior implied, and the description accurately reflects a read-only safety check.
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 sentence with key information, but includes bracketed cost and endpoint details that could be separated. For a tool with only two simple parameters, it is sufficiently 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?
No output schema, but description explains what the tool checks (sellable, tax, creator history). For a yes/no check, this is adequate. Could mention return format but not critical given simplicity.
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%, so baseline is 3. Description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only repeating address and chain details with a note on default chain. No new parameter constraints or formats explained.
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?
Describes a fast yes/no honeypot check for tokens before buying, specifying it checks sellability, buy/sell tax, and creator honeypot history. Clearly distinguishes from sibling snipe tools like snipe_safety or snipe_rh.
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?
Explicitly states usage context ('before buying' and 'pre-trade gate') but does not mention when not to use or list alternative tools. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate use.
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.