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 declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral details beyond that: it specifies the 4-hour time window, the return fields (full addresses, landed count, total submissions, land rate percentage), and that only the top 5 are free, with a paid full version. This provides useful context about what the operation does and its limitations.
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 two sentences, with the primary action and scope in the first sentence, followed by specific return details and an alternative in the second. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.
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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what the tool returns, the ranking criteria, the time window, and how to access the full leaderboard. This is a complete and self-contained description for this simple tool.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is 100% by default. The description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics; the baseline of 4 applies as no parameters exist that require additional explanation.
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 retrieves top MEV searchers ranked by landed liquidation fires in the last 4 hours, with a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like get_liquidation_waves or get_daily_liquidation_report by focusing on the leaderboard metric.
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 indicates this returns the top 5 free, and mentions the full 25-entry leaderboard requires x402 payment, giving context for when to use the free subset vs an alternative. However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, so guidelines are only partially explicit.
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.