Hoodly GMGN Robinhood Research

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

No annotations exist, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It declares the tool is 'read-only', indicating safe operation, and mentions the type of data (fundamentals, security). However, it lacks details on response structure, handling of invalid addresses, or caveats about data freshness, leaving gaps in transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys purpose, scope, and data type without unnecessary words. Every part is essential.

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 the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers basic purpose. However, it omits expected output format (e.g., table, scores) and any behavioral notes (e.g., performance limits), making it adequate but not fully complete for a reliable call.

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% and the description does not explain the 'addresses' parameter beyond implying it expects token contract addresses. The schema itself is clear (array of Ethereum addresses, 2-5 items), but the description adds no extra value such as format, validation, or purpose of each address.

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 performs a 'read-only comparison' of '2–5 Robinhood Chain token contracts' using 'lightweight GMGN fundamentals and security data'. It distinguishes from siblings like list (listing launches), research (deep dive one token), kline (price chart), and trending (top tokens) by specifying comparison across multiple tokens.

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 the tool is for comparing multiple tokens, contrasted with siblings that focus on individual tokens or lists. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide a direct alternative to competitors like research for deeper analysis.

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?

The description labels the tool as 'Read-only discovery', indicating no side effects. However, without annotations, it lacks details on pagination, sorting, rate limits, or data freshness. Basic transparency is provided but incomplete.

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 concise sentences that front-load the core purpose. The second sentence adds contextual clarification. It is appropriately sized without unnecessary verbosity.

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 the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should explain return format, token selection criteria, and parameter usage. It fails to do so, leaving significant gaps for an agent to invoke the tool 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 0%, and the description does not explain any parameters. The enum 'stage' values and the meaning of 'minLiquidityUsd' are left entirely to the schema, making the description unhelpful for parameter understanding.

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 Robinhood Chain launchpad tokens (newly created, near-completion, graduated). It distinguishes itself from 'Pons-only' provenance but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like hoodly_screen_robinhood_launchpads.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or use cases that help an agent decide between this and sibling 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?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses read-only behavior and the absence of trading directives, providing core safety context. It does not mention auth requirements or rate limits, but the simple mutation-free nature is well communicated.

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 focused sentence (17 words) with no filler. It front-loads the essential purpose and behavioral constraint, making it immediately scannable.

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 no output schema, the description only vaguely mentions 'observations and a deterministic research score.' It does not detail return structure, error handling, or the meaning of 'holderLimit.' While the tool is simple, the description leaves the agent somewhat uninformed about the output and parameter semantics.

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 0%, yet the description adds no parameter-level guidance. The address format is left to the regex, and holderLimit's purpose is unexplained. The agent cannot infer how to set parameters beyond the schema's minimal constraints.

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 performs read-only multi-source due diligence on a Robinhood Chain token, returning observations and a deterministic research score. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on single-token research rather than comparison, listing, or screening.

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 use for token due diligence prior to decisions and explicitly says 'never a trading directive,' but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings or outline exclusions beyond that. Context is clear enough for most agents.

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?

No annotations provided, so description must carry burden. It states 'read-only' but lacks details on data freshness, rate limits, or other behavioral traits beyond that.

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?

Single sentence is efficient and front-loaded, but could benefit from a brief mention of parameters or output format without becoming verbose.

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?

Missing important context: no output schema, no explanation of how the combination works, no description of return format or structure, leaving the agent uncertain about the result.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters (launchLimit, trendingLimit) or their roles in the briefing.

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's a read-only briefing combining new Robinhood launches and 24-hour trending data, distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on individual components.

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 vs. sibling tools or when not to use it. The description implies a quick overview scenario but lacks alternatives or exclusions.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It correctly marks the tool as 'Read-only' but omits other behavioral traits like response format, data limits, freshness, or pagination. This leaves significant ambiguity.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It is appropriately short but sacrifices necessary detail; still, it is efficient for a simple tool.

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 the simplicity (2 params, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to specify return structure, data range, or usage constraints, leaving critical gaps for an AI agent to use the tool 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 0%, and the description does not explain any parameters. The user is left to infer that 'address' is a token contract address and 'resolution' affects time intervals, but no explicit guidance is provided.

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 returns 'OHLCV/K-line history' and is 'read-only', specifying the data type and verb. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'hoodly_research_robinhood_token', which might also return historical data.

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 includes a use-case hint ('useful to distinguish fresh activity from sustained momentum') but provides no explicit guidance on when to avoid this tool or which alternatives (siblings) are better suited for different scenarios.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries full weight. It mentions 'Read-only', implying no mutation, but fails to disclose data freshness, caching, rate limits, or the definition of 'trending'. The behavioral insight is minimal.

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, which is concise but at the expense of necessary detail. It conveys the core purpose without verbosity, but does not fully earn its place as it omits crucial information about parameters and usage.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and two parameters, the description is too sparse. It does not describe the return format, pagination, or how to interpret results, leaving the agent without sufficient context for a complete understanding.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the 'limit' or 'interval' parameters. It adds no meaning beyond the parameter names and defaults visible in the schema, leaving the agent to infer their purpose without guidance.

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 returns 'trending tokens' from 'Robinhood Chain' and specifies it is 'Read-only'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'hoodly_list_robinhood_launches' and 'hoodly_compare_robinhood_tokens' by focusing on trending, though not explicitly differentiating usage.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as listing launches or researching a specific token. The description lacks context for selecting this over other Robinhood-focused 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?

The description confirms it is read-only and does not execute trades, which is good. However, with no annotations, it fails to disclose other behaviors such as output format, pagination, data freshness, or how server-side filters work. The behavioral disclosure is minimal.

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 concise—two sentences that front-load the most critical information: read-only, scope, filter mechanism, and safety. No redundant or unnecessary words.

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?

Despite a clear purpose, the description lacks details on output, parameter usage, and integration with sibling tools. With no annotations or output schema, the agent is left guessing about how to use the filters and interpret results. The tool is more complex than the description suggests.

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 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the 6 parameters (limit, stage, profile, maxRugRatio, minLiquidityUsd, minSmartMoneyCount). The agent must infer meaning from names and enums alone, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 is a 'read-only quality screen across all Robinhood Chain launchpads' and mentions server-side filters. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'hoodly_list_robinhood_launches' by emphasizing a screening/filtering role rather than a simple listing.

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 safe usage by stating 'never executes a trade', but it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'hoodly_research_robinhood_token' or 'hoodly_compare_robinhood_tokens'. Context of use is only indirectly conveyed.

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