Robinhood Chain live pools: new and trending liquidity pools on Robinhood's Ethereum L2 for tokenized stocks and DeFi, built for 24/7 agentic onchain trading. Send { limit? }. First-mover data feed for agents trading Robinhood Chain's tokenized-stock and RWA ecosystem. [x402 paid tool — price $0.005; POST /api/snipe/rh]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max pools per list, default 20 (max 50) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It reveals it is a paid tool (cost $0.005) and mentions live/24/7 data, but does not clarify if it is read-only, rate limits, or other side effects. The phrase 'Send { limit? }' is cryptic and adds minimal behavioral context.
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 contains 4 sentences but includes promotional language ('built for 24/7 agentic onchain trading') and an unclear command. It front-loads the purpose but could be more succinct and clearer.
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 tool with 1 optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core function, ecosystem, cost, and endpoint. However, it lacks details about output format or what 'live pools' returns, leaving the agent without full expectations.
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 schema already describes the limit parameter with default and max. The description only mentions 'Send? { limit? }' which adds no additional meaning. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.
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 identifies the tool's function: listing new and trending liquidity pools on Robinhood Chain. It specifies the resource (Robinhood chain pools), action (listing/sniping), and differentiates from other tools by focusing on tokenized stocks and RWA ecosystem.
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 agents trading on Robinhood Chain seeking first-mover data, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like rh_pool or snipe_newpairs. 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.