List tokenized stocks & ETFs live on Robinhood Chain with on-chain prices, liquidity, and volume. Send {} for the default basket or { tickers: [...] } for specific ones. Discovery feed for agents building tokenized-equity strategies. [x402 paid tool — price $0.02; POST /api/rh/stocks]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tickers | No | Optional array of tickers, e.g. ["NVDA","AAPL"]; defaults to a common basket |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses it is a paid tool with price $0.02 and the POST endpoint method. No annotations exist, so this adds useful behavioral info. No contradictions.
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 sentences cover purpose, usage, and pricing without redundancy. Every sentence is necessary and 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?
Adequately complete for a list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema. Could mention the return format, but the purpose is clear. Good given the complexity.
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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter. Description adds value by explaining optionality, giving examples like ['NVDA','AAPL'], and noting default behavior, which goes beyond the schema.
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 it lists tokenized stocks and ETFs with on-chain prices, liquidity, and volume. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'rh_stock' (singular) and other rh* tools by focusing on a basket or specific tickers.
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?
It specifies usage: send empty object for default basket or object with tickers array for specific ones, and labels it as a discovery feed for agents. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or compare to siblings, but the context is clear.
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.