Robinhood Chain balances: native ETH plus any token balance (defaults to USDG, the chain's stablecoin). Send { address, token? }. [x402 paid tool — price $0.002; POST /api/rhchain/balance]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | No | Token contract (default USDG) | |
| address | Yes | 0x wallet |
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 that the tool is paid ($0.002) and provides the endpoint, which is useful. However, it does not mention potential error cases, rate limits, or how returns are structured, leaving gaps in transparency.
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 concise—one sentence plus a code-like format and a note—containing only essential information. Every part earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the main action.
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 two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main functionality, default behavior, and cost. It lacks details on return format and possible errors, but is still fairly complete for a simple balance check.
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 input schema already documents both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that the tool returns both native ETH and token balances, and that the token defaults to USDG. This extra context improves understanding 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 retrieves balances for native ETH and any token (defaulting to USDG) on Robinhood Chain, distinguishing it from sibling tools like rhchain_activity or rhchain_block. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the context makes its purpose unambiguous.
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 a clear usage format ('Send { address, token? }') and notes the default token, making it easy to use. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it specify when not to use it, which would be helpful given the many related tools.
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.