Search tokens and trading pairs across all chains by name, symbol, or address, ranked with price, liquidity, and 24h volume. Send { query, limit? }. Find the right contract fast before sniping. [x402 paid tool — price $0.005; POST /api/snipe/search]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results, default 10 (max 30) | |
| query | Yes | Token name, symbol, or contract address |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool is paid ($0.005), uses POST /api/snipe/search, and ranks results. However, it does not mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when no results are found. The ranking criteria are mentioned but not detailed.
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 three sentences plus a bracket note. It front-loads the core purpose and includes the endpoint and pricing. The phrase 'Send { query, limit? }' is somewhat redundant given the schema but not harmful. Overall efficient, though the marketing line ('Find the right contract fast') could be omitted.
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 search tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and parameters. However, it lacks details on result ranking (multi-factor or sorted?), pagination, supported chains, and error handling. The lack of output schema increases the need for description completeness.
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 both parameters described. The description adds minimal extra meaning: it restates that 'query' can be name, symbol, or address (already in schema) and implies limit is optional. It does provide context about the ranking, but that is about output behavior rather than parameter semantics.
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 searches tokens and trading pairs across all chains by name, symbol, or address, with ranking by price, liquidity, and 24h volume. It also specifies the input format and includes a call to action. This distinguishes it from siblings like snipe_pair or snipe_trending.
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 before sniping ('Find the right contract fast before sniping') but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives. Sibling tools exist for specific purposes (e.g., snipe_newpairs, snipe_trending) but no guidance is provided on choosing between them.
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.