Copy-trade tracker: a wallet's recent token transfers on Base, labeled buy/sell, plus the tokens it just acquired. Send { address, limit? }. Follow smart-money wallets and mirror what they're buying. [x402 paid tool — price $0.005; POST /api/snipe/wallet]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max transfers, default 15 (max 40) | |
| address | Yes | 0x wallet address to track (Base) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the paid nature ($0.005), the API endpoint (POST /api/snipe/wallet), and the chain (Base). However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior or potential effects beyond tracking.
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?
Two sentences cover purpose, usage, and cost without excess. The first sentence is informative, the second adds transparency details. Slightly dense but effective.
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 tool's moderate complexity (2 params, no nested objects, no output schema), the description adequately explains purpose, usage, and key behavioral context (paid, chain). It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke correctly.
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. The description adds context that the address is for Base chain and the limit parameter is optional with a default of 15 (max 40), which is already in the schema but reiterated concisely.
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 this tool tracks a wallet's recent token transfers on Base, labeled buy/sell, and shows acquired tokens. It uses specific verbs (track, mirror) and distinguishes from siblings like snipe_holders, snipe_honeypot, etc.
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 explicitly says 'Follow smart-money wallets and mirror what they're buying', giving clear use case context. It also mentions it's a paid tool with price, but does not provide exclusion criteria or alternatives.
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.