robinx_entityFollow a wallet across the accumulated holder-snapshot archive: every scanned token it appears in with balance then/now, plus ENS/Farcaster identity and insider/deployer records. The archive is recorded live and cannot be rebuilt retroactively. Costs $0.05 USDC on Base. (paid $0.05 — see instructions)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | Wallet address 0x… |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint), the description adds behavioral details: the cost of $0.05, that the data is from a live archive that cannot be rebuilt retroactively. No contradictions with 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?
The description is two sentences plus a cost note, which is reasonably sized. The core action is front-loaded. However, the cost information could be integrated more tightly, and some phrasing is slightly redundant.
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 and moderate complexity (multiple return fields), the description lists outputs but does not detail their structure, pagination, or limits. It is adequate but leaves gaps for an agent needing precise format expectations.
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?
Input schema has 100% coverage with a clear description for the single required parameter 'address'. The description does not add further semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Follow a wallet') and resource ('accumulated holder-snapshot archive'), listing concrete outputs (tokens, balances, identity, insider/deployer records). It distinguishes from sibling tools like robinx_wallet by emphasizing cross-token archive 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 description mentions the cost ($0.05 on Base) and that the archive is live and non-rebuildable, providing some context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like robinx_wallet or robinx_token, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance.
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.