chiefofstaff token safety (Solana + Robinhood Chain)

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only nature is established. The description adds that it is 'Free' and lists the returned components, but it does not explain behaviors like what happens when no unpaid offer exists or whether external calls are made. With annotations covering the safety profile, the bar is lower, and the description adds some context (free, return fields) but not rich behavioral detail.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with 'Free', and packs the essential information (what is returned and its components) without fluff. The phrase 'for a check' is somewhat ambiguous and could be clearer, but overall it is appropriately terse and well-structured.

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 simple read-only tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient: it names the return fields and the annotations cover safety. However, it leaves 'check' undefined and does not mention edge cases (e.g., missing chain, unsupported address, no unpaid offer). Given the tool's simplicity, this is a minor gap but still leaves room for ambiguity.

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 description coverage is only 50% (chain has no description; address does). The description says 'networks' plural and 'for a check' but does not clearly map the chain parameter to networks or explain how address affects the quote. It fails to compensate for the missing chain description, leaving the agent to infer parameter semantics from enum values and the address description alone.

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 states a specific verb ('Returns') and a concrete resource ('the unpaid HTTP 402 offer') and lists the exact fields returned (networks, USDC amount, payTo, raw PAYMENT-REQUIRED). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like get_sample_report or token safety checks, so an agent can identify it immediately.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. It does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or conditions under which the quote would be unavailable. The word 'Free' hints at a reason to use it, but that is not enough to guide selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by noting the tool is free and returns a full recorded paid response, though it does not address failure behavior or return structure.

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 extremely compact and front-loaded: 'Free.' immediately signals cost, followed by the core behavior and illustrative examples. Every element earns its place with no redundancy.

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 simple one-parameter read-only tool with annotations and ID examples, the description is largely sufficient. The only notable omission is guidance on how to obtain valid IDs or what happens on lookup failure, but these are minor given the tool's low complexity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does: it explains that id identifies a sample report and provides realistic examples like rh-musebook-2026-09-24 and sol-bonk-2026-09-24. This goes well beyond the bare string pattern.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Returns one full recorded paid response by id', and reinforces it with concrete ID examples. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_sample_reports by emphasizing singular retrieval by ID.

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 implicitly suggests use when you already have an ID, but it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention list_sample_reports as the way to discover IDs, nor does it contrast with get_payment_quote.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description need not repeat safety. It adds the 'immutable' property of the data and the 'Free' cost note, plus the fields returned. However, it omits pagination, ordering, or any indication of the response size or format, which would be useful 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?

A single sentence front-loads the key point ('Free' and 'Lists') and efficiently packs the response contents. No wasted words; the description is compact and immediately informative.

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 parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description adequately states what it returns (the fields). It does not mention pagination, limits, or ordering, but these may be less critical given the simple nature. The tool is likely to return all records; a mention of any maximum or sorting would be a minor enhancement.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is fully covered (100%) and the description does not need to explain arguments. The baseline of 4 applies; no additional parameter semantics are needed.

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 immutable recorded paid responses with specific fields (request, time, Base tx, sha256, verdict). This is a distinct verb-resource pair and differs from siblings like get_sample_report (which likely retrieves a single report) and the token safety checks.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It says 'Free' and lists contents, but does not mention get_sample_report as the option for retrieving a specific report, nor does it define any conditions for choosing this listing over other tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses the paid nature ($0.01 USDC via x402 from YOUR wallet), the heuristic nature ('not financial advice'), and a detailed list of checks performed. This gives the agent a strong behavioral model of what will happen when invoked, including a financial side effect.

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 dense but efficient: three sentences pack the purpose, checks, payment model, and disclaimer. It front-loads the core purpose before the enumeration. Slightly long but every clause earns its place.

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 paid, multi-faceted tool with no output schema, the description covers the request mode (token + optional payment signature), the payment mechanism, and the content of the report. It does not describe the exact return structure, but the enumeration of signals/verdicts/tiers gives a good picture. The schema fills the remaining gap about the 402 offer behavior.

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 covers both parameters fully (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by explaining the payment flow and pointing to get_payment_quote for signing the payment signature, going beyond the schema's description.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Pre-trade safety grade for a Robinhood Chain (4663) ERC-20', then enumerates the exact checks performed. It clearly differentiates from the Solana sibling by naming the chain directly, leaving no ambiguity about scope.

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 context is clear: use this before trading a Robinhood Chain token, and it is paid via x402. It references get_payment_quote for signing the payment signature, but does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like the sample reports or the Solana version. This is clear context without explicit exclusions or alternative routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotation Contradiction: readOnlyHint=true conflicts with the description's explicit statement that the call is paid and charges $0.01 USDC via x402 from the user's wallet, which is a side effect. The description does transparently disclose the heuristic nature, but the contradiction with the read-only annotation dominates this dimension.

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 two sentences: the first front-loads the core output and scope, the second covers cost, payment mechanism, and disclaimer. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 paid, no-output-schema tool, it lists the key return fields, payment cost and mechanism, and the optional payment_signature path. The schema's payment_signature description references get_payment_quote, so an agent has the full workflow needed to invoke correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines mint and payment_signature adequately. The description adds contextual payment information but no new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, hence the baseline 3.

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 uses a concrete verb and resource ('Pre-trade safety grade for a Solana SPL mint') and enumerates a specific output list (PASS/FLAG/FAIL, verdict, tier, authorities, RugCheck risks, etc.). The 'Solana' qualifier and safety-grade focus distinguish it from sibling robinhood_token_safety_check.

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?

It clearly frames when to use the tool: before a trade on a Solana SPL mint, and it explains the payment flow (omit payment_signature to receive an offer). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but sibling context and the Solana-specific framing provide enough context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.