robinx_walletFree wallet reputation for any Robinhood Chain address: its deployer record (launched/real/dead + score) AND insider-flow history — whether it acquired token supply off-market, how much WETH it realized from that supply, and where it ranks among wallets flagged insider-linked. The "who is this wallet" call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | Wallet address 0x… |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by detailing the specific data returned (deployer record, insider-flow history, WETH realized, ranking), though it could mention data freshness or rate limits.
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 effectively summarize the tool's purpose and output, with no wasted words. The key information is front-loaded.
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 query tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns. A brief note on response format would improve completeness, but it is sufficient as-is.
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 100% schema coverage for the single parameter 'address', the schema already documents it. The description does not add further meaning beyond 'Wallet address 0x…', hence a baseline score 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 clearly states the tool provides 'free wallet reputation for any Robinhood Chain address' including deployer record and insider-flow history, and labels it as the 'who is this wallet' call, which distinctly separates it from sibling tools like robinx_token or robinx_deployer.
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 usage for checking wallet reputation but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context.
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.