Robinhood Chain regime (free)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world reads, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: it is free, takes no arguments, and names the metric families returned including a caveat-like 'feed health' signal. It stops short of describing freshness, rate limits, or how feed health should be interpreted.

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 nature and cost of the tool, then the routing guidance. The metric enumeration is dense but each item earns its place by telling the agent what data to expect; the list is long enough to slightly dilute the core message.

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 and no parameters, the description carries the burden and does so: it names the metric families an agent will receive, flags the free tier, and specifies scope versus the nearest sibling. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description confirms 'No arguments,' which is consistent with the empty schema and removes any doubt about required inputs.

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 (Robinhood Chain regime meter, chain 4663) and enumerates the concrete metrics it reports (launches/hour, graduations, curve buys/sells, unique buyers, snipe-tax facts, feed health). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling rhc_curve_card, so an agent can route between them without opening schemas.

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 a positive condition ('gauge Robinhood Chain launch activity as a whole') and a negative one ('not for one curve') paired with the exact alternative tool name (rhc_curve_card). This is the explicit when/when-not/alternative pattern.

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