Get the best Ethereum block builder for MEV bundle submission RIGHT NOW based on live relay acceptance rate and submission volume. Returns the top recommended builder name and acceptance percentage. Full ranked builder list with telemetry available at /intelligence/builder-recommendation 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 declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context: it operates on live relay acceptance rate and submission volume, returns only the top builder and acceptance percentage, and notes that a full ranked list requires x402 payment.
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 only two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then adding the output details and the paid alternative. 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?
With no parameters, no output schema, and simple scalar return values, the description fully covers what the tool does and what the user will get. It even points to an extended endpoint for more data, making it contextually complete.
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?
There are zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain beyond the schema. The description focuses on the tool's behavior and output, which is appropriate for an empty input schema.
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's function: 'Get the best Ethereum block builder for MEV bundle submission RIGHT NOW based on live relay acceptance rate and submission volume.' It specifically names the resource (builder recommendation) and the output (builder name and acceptance percentage), distinguishing it from siblings like recommend_bundle_submission.
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 provides clear context for real-time use ('RIGHT NOW') and mentions the full ranked list is available at another endpoint with payment, implicitly guiding users who need more than the top recommendation. It could explicitly name when not to use or cite alternatives, but the context is strong enough.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes (e.g., builder recommendation vs. bundle submission recommendation, liquidation waves vs. risk-enriched feed). However, a few pairs like `get_builder_recommendation` and `recommend_bundle_submission` could be confused, though descriptions differentiate them.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., `get_liquidation_waves`, `submit_bundle`, `predict_liquidation_probability`). No mixing of styles.
9 tools is appropriate for the MEV intelligence domain, covering opportunity discovery, prediction, builder recommendation, and submission without being excessive or too few.
The tool set covers the full workflow from monitoring to execution, including reporting and leaderboard. A minor gap is the lack of a direct tool to check submission status, though a tracking ID is provided for external query.