THE canonical Robinhood Chain tokenized-stock registry: every RH tokenized equity symbol -> contract address, plus USDG. The first machine-readable registry for this chain. Send {}. [x402 paid tool — price $0.002; POST /api/rhchain/registry]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or disclose side effects. It mentions it is a paid tool and requires sending an empty JSON object, but does not clarify if it modifies state or has rate limits.
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 very concise (two sentences plus metadata). It is front-loaded with the core purpose and adds necessary details like pricing and endpoint. Every sentence is valuable with no fluff.
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?
The tool has no parameters, output schema, or annotations. The description gives a clear purpose, output mapping, and usage instruction. However, it does not specify the return format (e.g., JSON structure) or pagination details, which would be helpful for an agent.
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 has zero parameters with 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying to send an empty JSON object '{}', clarifying the expected input format 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 explicitly states it is the canonical registry for tokenized-stock symbols to contract addresses on Robinhood Chain, plus USDG. It distinguishes from sibling tools by highlighting its unique role as a machine-readable registry and includes the HTTP endpoint and pricing info.
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 retrieving contract addresses, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like rhchain_balance or rhchain_contract. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance 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.