robinx_searchFree token search by $symbol, name fragment, or address. Returns ranked candidates (real + liquid first) and a symbol-collision warning — on Robinhood Chain, scammers deploy fake tickers of whatever is pumping; resolve here before buying a report or verdict.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | $SYMBOL, name, or 0x address |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds value by explaining the ranking order (real + liquid first) and the symbol-collision warning about scammers. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the action and purpose. Every sentence contributes useful information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter search tool with annotations, the description covers the input, output (ranked candidates, warning), and usage context. Missing details like pagination or limit are not critical given the tool's nature.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% for parameter q, with description '$SYMBOL, name, or 0x address'. The tool description reinforces this and adds context about the search behavior (free text, ranking). This adds meaning beyond the schema.
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 explicitly states that the tool searches tokens by symbol, name, or address, and returns ranked candidates with a warning. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like robinx_token or robinx_report, which deal with specific token data or reports.
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 advises using this tool before buying a report or verdict to resolve token identity due to scams. While it doesn't explicitly list alternatives, it provides clear context for when to use this tool.
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.