Dex Arb: Scan DEXes for arbitrage opportunities. 🆓 5 free trial calls per signed wallet
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "x402-dex-arb"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | No | ||
| address | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / address / descriptionRemoved value: -"Address to process"Input schema / properties / token / descriptionRemoved value: -"Token to process"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses a pricing/quota characteristic ('5 free trial calls per signed wallet'), which implies a paid, wallet-authenticated service and is real information beyond the schema. However, it says nothing about the return content (routes, spreads, gas-adjusted profit), whether it is read-only, or what happens after the free calls are exhausted.
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 short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler prose. The emoji-laden pricing line is compact enough to earn its space as a cost signal, though it is more marketing than operational detail.
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 tool with zero annotations, no output schema, and fully undocumented parameters, the description does far too little. An agent cannot tell what inputs to supply, what the response looks like, or how this differs from the numerous sibling scanner/arbitrage tools.
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 0% and the description never mentions the two parameters. It is unclear whether 'token' is a symbol or a contract address, or what 'address' refers to (wallet? pair? chain?). Both are optional, which reduces risk, but the meaning is left entirely to guesswork.
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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Scan DEXes for arbitrage opportunities.' An agent can immediately grasp that this is an opportunity-discovery tool for DEX arbitrage. It stops short of distinguishing itself from near-neighbors such as x402-dex-scanner, x402-dex-price, or x402-token-arbitrage-spot, which is why it does not reach a 5.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling DEX/arbitrage tools. The only supplementary sentence covers trial pricing, not usage context, exclusions, or prerequisites for invocation.
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.