robinx_basketFree live forward paper-basket: every launch from a proven deployer, entered +30min, held. The lookahead-free public track record of the RobinX signal.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds context: it is 'free live forward', 'every launch from a proven deployer, entered +30min, held', and 'lookahead-free'. This provides behavioral specifics beyond the annotations, though it could mention data freshness or scope limitations.
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 that front-load the core purpose and add a clarifying second sentence. No fluff or repetition.
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?
Although the tool has no inputs and annotations cover safety, the description lacks details about the output format or fields of the record. Without an output schema, the description should at least enumerate what data points are included (e.g., token addresses, timestamps). Current description is adequate but not complete.
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 description has no burden to explain them. According to the rubric, 0 params yields a baseline of 4.
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 it provides a 'live forward paper-basket' and 'lookahead-free public track record', indicating a read-only record of signals. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like robinx_signals or robinx_report, leaving some ambiguity about its specific role.
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. With many sibling tools, the absence of usage context forces the agent to rely on the tool name alone, which is insufficient.
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 targets a distinct aspect of Robinhood Chain token analysis: deployer reputation, on-chain stats, social sentiment, wallet history, etc. Even overlapping concepts like verdict and report are clearly differentiated by scope and detail.
All tools follow a consistent 'robinx_<single_word_noun>' pattern, making it easy for an LLM to predict tool names and understand their purposes at a glance.
12 tools is optimal for a domain-specific server covering deployer analysis, token stats, social signals, wallet reputation, and composite reports. The count feels neither sparse nor bloated.
The tool set covers the core token analysis workflow: search, deployer check, on-chain stats, holder structure, social pulse, and comprehensive reports. Minor gaps like batch operations or historical comparisons exist but do not severely hinder usability.