Robinhood Chain transaction lookup: status (success/failed/pending), block, from/to, value, gas used, log count. Send { hash }. [x402 paid tool — price $0.005; POST /api/rhchain/tx]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hash | Yes | 0x transaction hash |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description discloses key behaviors: it is a paid tool ($0.005), uses a POST endpoint, and returns the listed fields. Could add whether it is read-only or any side effects.
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?
Concise three-line description with front-loaded purpose. Includes pricing and endpoint efficiently, though could be slightly more integrated.
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?
Description lists expected output fields adequately for a simple transaction lookup. No output schema exists, so description covers the return value. Could mention error handling, but not critical.
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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'hash', described as '0x transaction hash'. Description adds minimal extra meaning beyond schema, meeting baseline expectation.
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?
Description clearly states 'Robinhood Chain transaction lookup' and enumerates returned fields (status, block, from/to, value, gas used, log count), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings like crypto_tx or rhchain_block.
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?
Implied usage via description ('transaction lookup'), but no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., crypto_tx) or when not to use it.
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.