Deployer reputation record

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

Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, open-world. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: a $0.01 USDC charge on Base and the fact that tokenized-stock issuers return no score. It does not clarify latency, caching, or what a partial/unknown wallet returns, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, but rendered as one long sentence with a deeply nested parenthetical that interrupts the metric list. The stock_issuer aside earns its place but is buried where it distracts from the primary description.

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: counts, survival, volume, distribution pattern, and a 0-100 score. The pricing and issuer caveat round out what an agent needs to decide whether to spend the call.

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 with 100% schema coverage, so the schema does the work; the description's 'deployer wallet address' framing matches and adds no syntax details beyond the 0x… hint already present. Baseline 4 for a single fully documented parameter.

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 full reputation record for a deployer wallet on Robinhood Chain, enumerating the included metrics (launches, survival, best-token volume, wallet-to-wallet distribution, score). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling robinx_arc_deployer or robinx_wallet, so an agent must infer the Robinhood-vs-Arc split from the tool name alone.

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?

The stock_issuer clause implies one boundary case (tokenized-stock issuers get no score) but never states when to prefer this over robinx_arc_deployer or robinx_wallet. The cost note gives a reason to hesitate but no alternative routing.

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