Get a risk-enriched MEV opportunity stream. Returns 10 positions with chain, protocol, health factor, and risk tags. Full stream with borrower addresses and expected profit available at /intelligence/feed with x402 payment ($0.10). Use submit_bundle to act on opportunities directly from this feed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| min_net_usd | No | Minimum estimated net USD profit to include |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds behavioral detail by stating it returns exactly 10 positions, lists the included fields, and discloses that the full stream requires payment—useful context beyond the 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?
The description is concise and front-loaded, consisting of four short sentences each adding distinct value: the purpose, return contents, a paid alternative, and the action sibling. 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?
Without an output schema, the description adequately covers the return value by listing the fields (chain, protocol, health factor, risk tags) and the count (10). It also mentions the existence of a paid full stream for additional data, which is valuable context. Minor gaps include lack of ordering or default behavior, but it's sufficient for a simple read-only feed.
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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter min_net_usd, which is clearly described as 'Minimum estimated net USD profit to include'. The tool description does not add additional meaning to this parameter, so the baseline score 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 states the tool 'Get a risk-enriched MEV opportunity stream' and specifies the return contents (10 positions with chain, protocol, health factor, risk tags). It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning acting via submit_bundle and a paid full stream, implying this is the limited free feed.
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 context for use: it returns a limited 10-position feed, while the full stream with borrower addresses and expected profit is available at /intelligence/feed at a cost. It also directs users to submit_bundle to act on opportunities, giving an alternative for follow-up actions. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other sibling read tools like get_daily_liquidation_report.
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.