Toll — coin checks on Robinhood Chain, Arc, BSC and Solana

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that this is a live, right-now snapshot computed by Toll's engine, but it never states whether values are cached, how often they refresh, or the snapshot timestamp. Behavioral value added is modest relative to the annotation coverage.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that leads with the headline ('How busy Robinhood Chain is right now') before the metric list, and the scope caveat is attached at the end. It is dense but every clause names a distinct returned metric, so little is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating the metric families an agent can expect. It lacks freshness/latency expectations for a 'live' feed, which would be the last piece needed for full confidence in a no-argument tool.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rules the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no filtering arguments are available, keeping the parameter story consistent with the empty 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?

States a specific subject (real-time activity metrics on Robinhood Chain) and enumerates the concrete signals returned (launches, graduations, pools, trades, volume). Scope is pinned with 'Robinhood Chain only'. It stops short of distinguishing itself from the sibling fresh_launches, which appears to overlap with the 'launches in the last 5 minutes' portion.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives. The only boundary stated is a data-scope limitation ('Robinhood Chain only'), which is a constraint rather than usage direction. An agent must infer on its own when this summary beats fresh_launches or launch_record.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare this is a safe, idempotent, open-world read, so the description builds on that by disclosing chain IDs (4663/5042/56), that the response's first line names the chain, and that findings are ranked against/careful/clear. That is meaningful context about output behavior and detection fallback not present in the annotations.

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 purpose and chain list are front-loaded in the first clause, and the following per-chain clauses are dense but substantive since there is no output schema to convey return shape. It is long and somewhat run-on, but no sentence is filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of describing what comes back, and it does so thoroughly per chain (dev history, snipers, tax exemptions, authorities, holders, curve/pool). An agent knows both how to call it and roughly what to expect.

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 100%, so both parameters (chain enum with IDs, address pattern) are already fully documented. The description's note that omitting chain lets Toll detect it largely echoes the schema's own wording, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the structured data.

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 (check) and resource (one token) and immediately enumerates exactly what it reveals per chain, so its scope is unambiguous. It is clearly distinguished from narrower siblings like dev_record or launch_record because it aggregates both dev and launch intelligence for a single token.

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?

Usage context is clear: this is the tool for vetting one specific token across four named chains, and it explains that the chain can be auto-detected when omitted. However, it never names an alternative or states when NOT to use it, so an agent facing overlapping siblings (launch_record, dev_record, wallet_privacy) gets no explicit routing rule.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior, so the safety bar is low. The description adds useful data-scope context (which fields are returned per chain, that Pons/Long launchpads are the known set), but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or result granularity.

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 tool's scope leads the first sentence and chain-specific behavior follows in order, with no filler. It is dense and slightly run-on, but every sentence carries distinct information about what is returned.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating the per-chain fields. What remains slightly under-specified is the shape and volume of results (e.g., how many 'latest launches'), but the agent has enough to invoke correctly.

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 100%, so both parameters (wallet pattern, chain enum) are already fully documented. The description's 'Reads Robinhood Chain unless chain names another' essentially restates the chain default rather than adding new semantics, so the 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 states a specific resource (every coin a given wallet launched) and enumerates the returned facts per chain (count, bonding-curve graduation, dev-sold status, latest launches). It is clearly distinct from single-coin siblings like check_coin or launch_record, though it never names an alternative to route against.

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?

It gives one concrete usage rule — 'Reads Robinhood Chain unless chain names another' — which tells the agent how the default behaves. However, it offers no when-to-use guidance relative to siblings such as check_coin, launch_record, or wallet_privacy, leaving the routing decision implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the live engine as data source, freshness implied by 'newest first', the 20-item cap, and the per-coin fields returned (launchpad, age, pair, notes, link).

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?

A single dense sentence front-loads the core purpose and packs scope, ordering, source, return fields and cap without padding. Slightly run-on, but every clause carries 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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of naming the returned fields (launchpad, age, pair, engine notes, link) and the result cap, and it states the chain restriction. Only minor gaps remain, such as whether the feed is paginated or how 'live' is refreshed.

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 100% and the single 'limit' parameter is fully documented (1-20, default 10). The description only echoes the cap with 'At most 20', adding no new syntax or default information beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 resource and scope: the newest coins launched on Robinhood Chain, newest first, drawn from Toll's live engine. It is clearly a launch-feed listing rather than a single-coin lookup like check_coin, though it never names a sibling to sharpen the contrast.

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?

Usage is implied by 'newest coins ... newest first' and the 'Robinhood Chain only' constraint, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative (e.g. use check_coin for a full audit of one token). The agent must infer the routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the record is 'frozen and never edited', and it covers a fixed 24-hour horizon, so the agent knows the data is an immutable historical snapshot rather than a live read.

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 resource and the check_coin routing are front-loaded, but the opening is a long run-on with slash-separated jargon ('against / careful / clear (or launch facts only)') that is hard to parse and spends words on stylistic flavor rather than agent-relevant 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return contents, and it does so reasonably: verdict, tallied findings, rationale, dev/funder's other coins, and 24h outcome. It is dense but covers what an agent needs to know before calling.

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 100% and there is a single required 'address' parameter whose pattern is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 identifies a distinct resource: the frozen launch-day call record (verdict, findings, dev/funder coins, 24h outcome) for a Robinhood Chain token. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling check_coin ('Not the coin now: use check_coin for that'), though the 'Toll made... against / careful / clear' jargon muddies the exact nature of the resource.

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?

It names the alternative and the condition that selects it ('Not the coin now: use check_coin for that') and states a hard scope restriction ('Robinhood Chain only'). It lacks an explicit positive when-to-use trigger, but the implied context (wanting the historical launch call) is legible from the resource description.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by disclosing the categories of 'leaks' surfaced (funder, linked wallets, holdings, active hours, launches, trading record, linked accounts) and an important interpretive caveat that the grade measures visibility rather than wallet quality, which prevents misuse of the result.

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, front-loaded with the returned artifacts and followed by the interpretive caveat and scope. The chain scope is stated twice ('from Robinhood Chain alone' and 'Robinhood Chain only'), a small redundancy, but nothing else is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing the return and does so by naming each output component. Missing only finer details such as grade thresholds or the shape of the 'tips' payload, which are secondary for a one-parameter read tool.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents the 0x + 40 hex address format. The description adds no further parameter detail, which is acceptable given full coverage but earns only the baseline.

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 (analyze what anyone can learn) and resource (a wallet on Robinhood Chain), and enumerates the exact artifacts returned: a letter grade, a 0-100 score, individual leaks, and tips. It also scopes the analysis to Robinhood Chain data only, which separates it from the launch/coin-oriented siblings without ambiguity.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource being a wallet and the phrase 'Robinhood Chain only', which tells the agent not to expect cross-chain coverage. However there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion language, and no routing to or from siblings such as dev_record or check_coin.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.