Robinhood Chain contract inspector: is it a contract, code size, verified name/compiler, ABI availability. Send { address }. [x402 paid tool — price $0.005; POST /api/rhchain/contract]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | 0x address |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool is paid and uses a specific HTTP endpoint, but does not mention side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, or return format. The behavioral transparency is insufficient for an agent to anticipate all consequences of invocation.
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, with a single sentence capturing the purpose and a brief metadata appendix. It is front-loaded and efficient, though the metadata (price, endpoint) could be integrated more naturally.
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 simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the input and key checks. However, it lacks any description of the output format or structure, which is important for an agent to process results. Given no output schema, this omission reduces completeness.
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 'address', with the schema describing it as '0x address'. The description adds no extra meaning beyond restating the input. Per guidelines, baseline 3 applies when schema coverage is high and description adds minimal value.
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 the tool inspects Robinhood Chain contracts, listing specific checks (contract status, code size, verified name/compiler, ABI availability) and the required input (address). This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like rhchain_balance or rhchain_tx.
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 implies usage for contract inspection but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It mentions it's a paid tool ($0.005) but does not compare to alternative tools or state prerequisites. Usage context is clear but lacks explicit direction.
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.