Full trading snapshot for a token: live price, liquidity, FDV, market cap, 5m/1h/6h/24h volume and price change, buy/sell counts, and pair age. Send { address, chain? }. Complete pre-trade due diligence in one call. [x402 paid tool — price $0.005; POST /api/snipe/pair]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | No | Optional chain filter, e.g. base | |
| address | Yes | 0x token contract address |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Despite no annotations, the description explicitly states it is a paid tool with price ($0.005) and endpoint (POST /api/snipe/pair). It lists the data returned (price, liquidity, volumes, etc.), implying a read-only operation. No side effects or destructive actions are mentioned, and the payment disclosure is valuable behavioral context.
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 concise at two sentences plus a payment note, with no wasted words. Key information (what the tool does, required input, and payment details) is front-loaded in the first sentence.
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?
The description lists the returned data fields but omits details on response format (since no output schema exists), error handling for invalid addresses, or the impact of the optional chain parameter. For a complex snapshot tool, more completeness could be provided.
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?
Input schema has 100% coverage for both parameters (address and chain). The description adds no new semantic information beyond 'Send { address, chain? }', which is redundant. The schema already provides descriptions, so the baseline of 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?
The description clearly defines the tool as providing a 'Full trading snapshot' for a token, listing specific metrics (price, liquidity, FDV, etc.). This verb+resource combination effectively distinguishes it from sibling snipe_* tools that focus on specific aspects like holders or honeypot checks.
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 states 'Complete pre-trade due diligence in one call', indicating when to use the tool for a broad overview before trading. It does not explicitly exclude scenarios or mention alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer its primary use case among many sibling tools.
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.