Detect sandwich-attack legs in a same-block, same-pool trade sequence and optionally return only those flagged legs.
Flag sandwich-attack legs in a same-block, same-pool trade sequence.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| trades | Yes | ||
| asset_class | No | Which market answers. Inferred from the symbol's source when omitted. | |
| sandwiches_only | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it does not disclose read-only/offline behavior, side effects, output format, or limitations. The schema mentions an offline sequence, but the tool description itself does not.
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 single sentence is front-loaded and has no filler, but it is under-specified for a three-parameter analytic tool. It is concise without being sufficiently informative.
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 output schema, no annotations, and low schema coverage, the one-line description leaves the agent without the return format, parameter structure, or execution semantics needed to invoke the tool confidently.
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 only 33%, and the description never mentions any of the three parameters. It does not explain the required trades array structure, the asset_class enum, or what sandwiches_only changes.
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 states a specific verb ('Flag') and resource ('sandwich-attack legs') with a clear scope ('same-block, same-pool trade sequence'). It is distinct from all listed siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with an alternative tool.
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 sentence defines the input domain but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. An agent must infer selection from the domain phrase alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.