Get top MEV searchers ranked by landed liquidation fires in the last 4 hours. Returns top 5 searchers with full addresses, landed count, total submissions, and land rate percentage. Full 25-entry leaderboard available at /intelligence/searcher-leaderboard with x402 payment ($0.25).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark it read-only and non-destructive; description adds return shape (top 5, fields, time window) and the payment limitation, giving concrete behavioral context beyond annotations.
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 with all information front-loaded; no wasted words.
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 read-only tool, description fully explains what is returned and its scope; no output schema needed.
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?
Zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%; baseline for no params is 4, and description confirms no inputs needed.
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?
Specific verb 'Get' + resource 'top MEV searchers ranked by landed liquidation fires in the last 4 hours'; clearly differentiates from siblings like get_daily_liquidation_report by time window and focus.
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?
Covers intended use (top 5 recent searchers) and points to a paid alternative for the full 25-entry leaderboard; doesn't explicitly exclude other siblings but provides directional guidance.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: building calldata, getting builder recommendations, daily reports, listing borrowers, grabbing an opportunity stream, viewing leaderboards, monitoring crossing candidates, predicting probabilities, recommending submission, and submitting bundles. No overlapping functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in lower_snake_case (e.g., build_liquidation_tx, get_builder_recommendation, submit_bundle), making it easy to predict tool behavior from names.
With 10 tools, the set is well-scoped for an MEV intelligence server. It covers the full workflow from opportunity discovery to bundle submission without being bloated or sparse.
The tool set covers the core liquidation workflow comprehensively (identify, predict, build, recommend, submit). A minor gap is the lack of a dedicated tool to check submission status, relying on an external endpoint instead.