Robinhood Chain event logs for a contract over a recent block window (optionally filtered by topic0). Send { address, topic0?, blocks? }. [x402 paid tool — price $0.005; POST /api/rhchain/logs]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| blocks | No | Window size, up to 10000 (default 5000) | |
| topic0 | No | Event signature hash filter | |
| address | Yes | 0x contract |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that this is a paid tool ($0.005) and mentions the POST endpoint, but lacks details on error behavior, rate limits, or the exact format of returned data. The 'recent block window' is vague.
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 two sentences long and includes purpose, parameters, pricing, and endpoint. It is efficient and front-loaded, though some information (like pricing) could arguably be placed elsewhere.
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, the description should explain what the response contains, but it only mentions 'event logs' without describing the structure or fields. It also lacks detail on the block window's exact bounds, pagination, and whether the $0.005 is per call or per event.
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%, so the schema already describes all parameters. The description adds minimal value by restating the parameter list in a compact format, but does not clarify formats (e.g., topic0 as hex) or defaults beyond what's in 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 event logs for a specific contract on Robinhood Chain over a recent block window, with optional filtering by topic0. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rhchain_token_transfers or rhchain_activity by focusing on raw event logs.
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 use for fetching event logs but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No comparison with sibling tools like rhchain_token_transfers or rhchain_activity is provided.
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.