robyn_sandbox_doRuns the identical path end to end against the sandbox: no key, no funds, no broadcast. Use this to prove an integration works before touching real money.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | No | ||
| amount | No | ||
| intent | No | ||
| toChain | No | ||
| fromChain | No | ||
| toAddress | No | ||
| amountHuman | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: no key required, no funds moved, no broadcast (simulated). This adequately informs an agent that the tool is safe and non-destructive, though it could mention absence of side effects.
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 concise sentences with no unnecessary words. Front-loaded with the action, then the constraints. Each sentence adds value and the structure is clean.
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 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimal. It provides the tool's purpose but lacks parameter details, usage examples, or output explanation, making it incomplete for an agent to use effectively.
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 description coverage is 0% across 7 parameters. Description adds no meaning beyond property names (e.g., 'amountHuman' is not explained). An agent cannot infer parameter details from the description alone, which fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.
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?
Description clearly states it runs a dry-run of the whole flow in sandbox mode ('no key, no funds, no broadcast'). While it distinguishes from siblings by indicating sandbox usage, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for comparison.
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 states 'Use this to prove an integration works before touching real money,' providing clear guidance on when to use. Does not include explicit exclusions or when not to use, but the intent is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.