robinx_arc_deployerFetch an Arc wallet's launch record to identify minted tokens with 100+ transfers, launchpads used, and counts reaching 1,000 transfers.
An Arc wallet's launch record: every token it minted since Arc genesis that reached 100 transfers, the launchpads it used, and how many reached 1,000 transfers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | Arc wallet address (0x + 40 hex) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) and indicate an open-world lookup. The description adds real behavioral scope beyond that: the data starts at Arc genesis, only tokens with 100+ transfers are included, and 1,000-transfer counts are aggregated — exactly the inclusion rules an agent needs to interpret results. It stops short of stating time window, pagination, or ordering.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the wallet-plus-record framing, and every clause carries distinct information (threshold, launchpads, 1,000-transfer counts). No filler or restatement of the name.
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 reasonably by enumerating the three components of the record. For a single-parameter read tool this is nearly enough; minor gaps are ordering, whether counts are cumulative since genesis, and result limits.
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?
Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema already stating it is a 0x+40-hex Arc wallet address. The description's 'an Arc wallet's launch record' confirms the address is the subject but adds no format, validation, or edge-case detail beyond the schema. 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 specifies the resource precisely: a per-wallet Arc launch record listing minted tokens that crossed a 100-transfer threshold, the launchpads used, and the count reaching 1,000 transfers. It is a noun-phrase description of the payload rather than a verb+resource statement, and it does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like robinx_deployer or robinx_arc_token, but the intended output is unambiguous.
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 or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The agent must infer from the 100/1,000-transfer thresholds that this is a filtering/counting view rather than a raw deployer lookup, and it has no signal about when robinx_deployer or robinx_arc_token would be the better choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
This server cannot be deployed