robinx_followed_byFree check: which watched Robinhood Chain principal accounts follow a given X handle, and since when — plus any observed follow/unfollow history. Honest about provenance: an edge that already existed when RobinX started watching is labelled already_following_when_tracking_began with a null followed_at, never dressed up as a dated follow.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| handle | Yes | X handle, with or without @ |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint. The description adds key behavioral details: only watched accounts are considered, and the provenance of 'already_following_when_tracking_began' with null followed_at is honestly stated, beyond annotation scope.
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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds essential information. No fluff; highly efficient.
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 a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool does, its scope (only watched accounts), and data provenance. No gaps for the complexity level.
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 100% with one parameter 'handle' described as 'X handle, with or without @'. The description reinforces this (given X handle) but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 clearly states it checks which watched Robinhood Chain principal accounts follow a given X handle, including since when and history. This is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like robinx_follows (which shows who a principal follows) and robinx_entity (more general).
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 a 'free check' for quick lookup but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like robinx_follows or robinx_entity. No when-not-to-use guidance or prerequisites are mentioned.
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.