robinx_feedNewest Robinhood Chain launches, each scored by deployer reputation. min_score=70 = proven deployers only; since=; limit=N (max 100). Designed to be polled. (paid $0.01 — see instructions)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| since | No | ||
| min_score | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context: polling design, cost ($0.01), and the effect of min_score=70 (filtering to proven deployers). No contradiction 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?
Two sentences plus parenthetical. Front-loads purpose, then parameter hints. Efficient but 'see instructions' points to missing detail. Not overly 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?
Adequate for a polling feed: explains what the feed contains and parameters. However, lacks output format description (what each launch item includes beyond score). Could be more complete given no output schema.
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 coverage, the description explains min_score, since, and limit but leaves ambiguity: since cursor format unspecified, limit as string (likely numeric), and no examples. Adds value but incomplete.
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 feed of newest launches scored by deployer reputation, with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like robinx_pulse or robinx_signals by focusing on new-launch scoring.
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?
Explicitly says 'Designed to be polled' and explains parameter usage (min_score, since, limit). Provides context for use but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when to use this vs sibling tools.
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.