robinhood_token_infoRetrieve price, price changes, market cap, liquidity, 24h volume, holder count, and social links for a Robinhood Chain token by symbol, name, or contract address.
Price, 5m/6h/24h price change, market cap, liquidity, 24h volume, holders, description, website and socials for a Robinhood Chain token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | Yes | Token symbol, name or 0x contract address on Robinhood Chain, e.g. TORCH |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description isn't carrying the safety burden. It adds value by enumerating the returned data set, which is meaningful given there is no output schema. However, it says nothing about behavior on an unknown/invalid token, lookup cost, or whether the symbol/name lookup can be ambiguous.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the highest-value return fields and closed with the resource scope. Nothing is redundant or padded.
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 usefully enumerates the return payload, which is the main thing an agent needs. It also pins the domain to Robinhood Chain. It could go further on behavior when a token isn't found or when a symbol resolves to multiple tokens, but overall it is sufficient to call 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%, and the single 'token' parameter is well documented in the schema itself, including accepted forms (symbol, name, or 0x address) and an example. The description adds no parameter-level guidance beyond that, so the baseline of 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 names the resource (a Robinhood Chain token) and enumerates exactly what data is retrieved: price, multi-window price change, market cap, liquidity, volume, holders, and metadata. That is a concrete, specific purpose. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like robinhood_token_safety or robinhood_trending_tokens, so it stops short of a 5.
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 statement of when to use this tool versus robinhood_token_safety (which presumably covers risk/safety) or robinhood_trending_tokens. The agent must infer that this is the 'general detail lookup' and the others are specialized. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.