US equity market session clock: is the underlying cash market (NYSE/Nasdaq) open, pre-market, after-hours, or closed right now, with holiday/half-day awareness and minutes-to-open/close. Send {}. The scheduling primitive every 24/7 Robinhood Chain agent needs to time premium/discount and gap trades around market hours. [x402 paid tool — price $0.003; POST /api/rh/session-clock]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's behavior (holiday/half-day awareness, minutes to open/close), cost ($0.003), and endpoint (POST /api/rh/session-clock). This is transparent for a read-only clock, though it does not detail return format or rate limits. No contradictions with annotations (none exist).
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 a single sentence plus a brief cost/endpoint note, but includes marketing language like 'The scheduling primitive every 24/7 Robinhood Chain agent needs', which is not strictly necessary. It could be shorter without losing clarity. A 3 reflects minor verbosity.
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 no output schema, the description clearly outlines what the tool returns (market status, holiday awareness, minutes to open/close) and its context (trade timing). For a simple real-time clock, this is sufficient and 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?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema coverage. The description adds 'Send {}' which confirms the schema's empty property set and implies no input is needed. With baseline 4 for zero-param tools, this adds no extra meaning but is consistent.
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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: a US equity market session clock indicating open, pre-market, after-hours, or closed status with holiday/half-day awareness and minutes to open/close. The verb 'is' and resource 'session clock' are clear, and no sibling tool covers this exact functionality, so it is well-differentiated.
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: 'The scheduling primitive every 24/7 Robinhood Chain agent needs to time premium/discount and gap trades around market hours.' This explains when to use the tool, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. However, given the niche function, this is sufficient.
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.
Tools are organized by domain prefix (e.g., 'crypto_', 'rh_', 'snipe_'), which helps distinguish between areas. Within each domain, they serve distinct purposes, though some overlap between domains exists (e.g., price data appears in multiple groups). Overall, an agent can navigate effectively.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with a domain prefix and a verb_noun combination (e.g., 'compliance_risk', 'rh_stock', 'snipe_honeypot'). This makes the API predictable and easy to explore.
With 159 tools, the server is extremely large. While the broad scope of web3 and utility functions justifies many tools, the count is significantly above the typical range for a coherent toolkit, potentially overwhelming agents and increasing selection error.
The toolkit covers a wide range of web3 operations: crypto, DeFi, compliance, safety, scheduling, memory, etc. There are no obvious major gaps for its intended purpose, though some niche areas might be missing.