USDG (Global Dollar) on Robinhood Chain: total supply, holder count, contract. The chain's native stablecoin at a glance. Send {}. [x402 paid tool — price $0.002; POST /api/rhchain/usdg]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the price ($0.002) and endpoint (POST /api/rhchain/usdg). However, it does not state whether authentication is needed, rate limits, or what happens on error. The 'Send {}' hint suggests no parameters but 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 short and front-loaded with the key output fields. The 'Send {}' and endpoint details are somewhat extraneous but not excessive. It is efficient overall.
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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description lists the main data provided (supply, holders, contract address). This is sufficient for a simple aggregator tool. No critical missing information.
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?
Input schema has zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but none is needed. 'Send {}' confirms no parameters, fitting 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 provides 'total supply, holder count, contract' for USDG on Robinhood Chain, distinguishing it from other rhchain tools that focus on balances, transactions, etc. The phrase 'native stablecoin at a glance' reinforces its purpose as a quick overview.
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 does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like rhchain_contract or rhchain_token_transfers. It mentions it's a paid tool but gives no guidance on context or exclusions.
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.