Robinhood Chain token risk card ($0.02)

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

Adds real value beyond the sparse annotations: it discloses the $0.02 per-call cost (a genuine side effect that helps explain readOnlyHint=false), and specifies computed behaviors such as graduated-token handling (pool taxes, no quote) and tax/quote measurement basis. Annotations alone would not tell an agent any of this.

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 price and use condition are front-loaded, which is good, but the remainder is a single dense, semicolon-chained run-on listing dozens of output fields. It is information-rich yet hard to parse and would benefit from structure, so it is adequate rather than efficient.

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 fully carries the burden of describing return content (verdict, basis, reasons, deployer record, sell_check, launch facts, flow, lifecycle, trade cost) and even edge cases like graduated tokens. An agent knows what it will get back and how to call it.

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 coverage is 100% and the single address parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description only restates 'address (0x + 40 hex)', adding no format or semantic detail beyond what the schema already carries, 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?

States a specific resource and scope: a risk/verdict card for ONE pons v2 token on Robinhood Chain, resolvable by curve or token address. The enumeration of returned fields (verdict, sell_check, launch facts) makes the tool's function unmistakable, though it never names or contrasts a sibling.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Use when you hold or are about to trade ONE pons v2 token on Robinhood Chain.' It even hints at input resolution (by curve or token address). No when-not guidance or named alternatives (e.g., token_safety, verdict) are provided.

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