Principal follow tape

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations, it discloses non-obvious operational traits: a ~6-hour polling cadence, baseline edges being marked and never reported as dated follows, caller-record cross-referencing, and a $0.02 USDC cost on Base. The baseline caveat in particular prevents a serious misreading of the data.

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 what the tape is and why it must be polled, then capability, then cost. Dense but nearly every clause carries information; the chain-context clause ('the chain's principals and launchpad accounts') is the only slightly padded element.

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 does the work of explaining what comes back: timestamped events, baseline flags, and caller-record enrichment. It omits anything about response envelope or pagination field names, so an agent still learns the shape only after calling.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented, and the description mostly restates them (since as cursor, watched as handle, event as follow|unfollow). It adds a little semantic framing — since is explicitly for polling — but no new format or edge-case detail beyond the schema.

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 verb and resource — follow/unfollow transitions by X accounts on Robinhood Chain — and scopes it to 'principals and launchpad accounts,' which separates it from the wider social tools in the sibling list. The 'timestamped events' framing makes clear this is an event tape, not a current-state lookup.

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 concrete invocation context: poll with since=<cursor>, filter by watched=<handle> or event=follow|unfollow. It also motivates use now ('X exposes only CURRENT following state, so this history cannot be reconstructed') which implies the tool must be polled rather than backfilled. It stops short of naming a sibling (e.g. robinx_followed_by) as the alternative for current-state queries.

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