New contract deployments on Robinhood Chain (Ottoscan; full history since genesis). tokens_only=True returns only new token contracts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| tokens_only | No | ||
| verified_only | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already label the tool as read-only, idempotent, and safe, lowering the bar. The description adds valuable context: full history since genesis and the tokens_only filter behavior. It does not mention performance implications or verified_only behavior, but still adds meaning beyond annotations.
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?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then a parameter clarification. No redundant information.
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 description is adequate for a read-only list tool with good annotations, but misses the verified_only parameter entirely and offers no hints about output shape or pagination. It covers the core purpose but has clear gaps.
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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only explains tokens_only ('returns only new token contracts') and leaves verified_only and limit undefined. Since 2 of 3 parameters are not semantically described, the tool is insufficiently documented.
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 the tool lists new contract deployments on Robinhood Chain, identifies the data source (Ottoscan), and covers full history since genesis. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like chain_stats or token_flows.
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?
Usage is implied: if you want new contract deployments on Robinhood Chain, this is the tool. However, there is no explicit mention of when to use this over siblings, nor any exclusions or alternative tool references.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, with detailed descriptions that separate e.g. hood_basis_snapshot from hood_basis_history and perp_spot_basis. A few clusters like flow_summary vs token_flows and multiple gap/basis tools could still cause slight ambiguity, but the descriptions are strong enough to guide correct selection.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with domain prefixes (hood_, agent_, competition_, partner_), and verbs are used predictably (report_, execute_, get_, etc.). There is no mixing of conventions or vague generic names.
39 tools is on the high side, but the server covers a very broad domain (market data, signals, trading execution, competition, partner APIs, agent reporting). While many tools earn their place, a few could be consolidated (e.g., gap/basis variants), making it feel heavier than necessary for typical usage.
The surface covers the core lifecycle: market data, signals, paper/real/partner trading, position tracking, and performance reporting. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit wallet balance or order cancellation), but the core workflows are well-covered and derived endpoints fill most needs.
