Read-only multi-source GMGN token due diligence on Robinhood Chain. Returns observations and a deterministic research score, never a trading directive.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | ||
| holderLimit | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It declares the tool is 'read-only' (safe, non-mutating), 'multi-source' (data aggregation), and 'never a trading directive' (disclaims advice). This provides good behavioral context beyond the input schema.
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, concise and front-loaded with the essential purpose. Every word adds value: 'read-only', 'multi-source', 'GMGN token due diligence', 'Robinhood Chain', and the disclaimer. No wasted text.
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 has 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate for a simple research operation but lacks parameter explanations and usage guidance. It mentions returns ('observations and a deterministic research score') but no detail on output structure, which could help agents parse results.
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 meaning for the two parameters (address, holderLimit). It does not explain what address is for (the token contract) or how holderLimit affects results. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
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 multi-source GMGN token due diligence' tool for Robinhood Chain, specifying its action (research/analysis) and the resource (a token). It differentiates from siblings by focusing on a single token deep-dive versus comparison, listing, daily brief, kline, trending, or screening operations.
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 provides context (token due diligence) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. The sibling list implies use for single-token research, but no direct comparisons or exclusion criteria are given.
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.
Each tool serves a distinct function: comparison, listing, research, brief, kline, trending, and screening. No overlap in purposes.
All tools follow the pattern 'hoodly_verb_noun' with descriptive names, consistently using snake_case and a research-oriented verb prefix.
7 tools is well within the ideal range, covering the full research lifecycle for Robinhood Chain tokens without being excessive.
The toolset covers discovery, research, comparison, market data, and screening, leaving no significant gaps for a read-only research server.