rh_ticker_resolveThe ONE Robinhood Chain contract worth naming for a ticker: alive, $10K+ in its pool, not flagged HIGH or CRITICAL. Other contracts using the name come back as a count, never a list. found=false means nothing clears the gate, which is itself the answer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the filtering criteria (alive, $10K+ pool, not flagged HIGH/CRITICAL), the fact that other contracts come back as a count, and the interpretation of found=false. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand expected outcomes.
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 criteria. It is efficient and avoids fluff, though it could be slightly more structured. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's behavior, so it earns a high score for conciseness.
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 read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral aspects (criteria and found=false semantics). However, it does not describe the output structure beyond the found flag, nor does it clarify domain-specific terms like 'alive' or 'pool.' It is adequate but leaves some gaps for an agent to infer.
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%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'symbol' parameter. It only mentions 'for a ticker,' which is vague and does not clarify the expected format, case sensitivity, or what symbols are valid. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's bare type definition.
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 states a specific verb ('resolve') and resource ('the ONE Robinhood Chain contract worth naming for a ticker') with clear criteria (alive, $10K+ pool, not flagged HIGH/CRITICAL). It distinguishes the tool's purpose from generic lookups and clarifies that other contracts are returned as a count, not a list. This is specific and unambiguous, not a tautology.
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 when to use this tool (when you need the 'real' ticker contract) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative sibling tools. It does not guide the agent toward or away from any of the many siblings like rh_chain_stats or rh_token_safety. No exclusions or alternative routing is provided.
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.