Estimate price impact and suggested max slippage for a trade of a given USD size against a token's live pool liquidity. Send { address, amountUsd, chain? }. Size positions correctly before executing a swap. [x402 paid tool — price $0.005; POST /api/snipe/impact]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | No | Optional chain filter, e.g. base | |
| address | Yes | 0x token contract address | |
| amountUsd | Yes | Trade size in USD |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool is paid ($0.005) and the endpoint (POST /api/snipe/impact). This adds cost and technical context beyond the schema. However, it does not detail rate limits, authentication, or error behavior.
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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage hint and cost/endpoint info. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.
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?
For a simple estimation tool with 3 well-documented parameters, the description provides sufficient context: what it does, when to use it, and its cost. It lacks details on output format or edge cases, but given no output schema, this is acceptable.
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 all three parameters. The description adds context by explaining the purpose ('estimate price impact for a trade of given USD size') and the role of each parameter ('address, amountUsd, chain?'). This enhances understanding beyond the schema's minimal descriptions.
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 the tool estimates price impact and suggested max slippage for a given trade size against live pool liquidity. It uses specific verbs and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like snipe_safety (safety checks) and snipe_newpairs (new pair listings).
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 gives usage context ('Size positions correctly before executing a swap'), implying it should be used pre-swap. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, nor does it state when not to use it.
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.