Social tape for one token

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds meaningful context beyond them: it never returns tweet text, it discloses a $0.02 USDC cost on Base, and it mentions a truncation flag. These are useful behavioral traits that help an agent understand the tool's constraints and output nature.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the tape and its contents, the second states the content limitation, and the third states the cost. The purpose is front-loaded and there is no redundant filler.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description gives enough detail about what is returned, including the measured caller record, true total with truncation flag, 24h velocity, first-ever mention, and cluster-vs-independent voice counts. Annotations cover safety, and the description covers output nature and cost, so the definition is complete enough to call correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the single token parameter is already fully documented as a contract address on Robinhood Chain. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, which fits the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 states a specific resource and scope: a mention tape for one Robinhood Chain token, with details on what the tape contains. It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as robinx_social_momentum or robinx_feed.

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 description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage through the mention-tape framing, but there are no when/when-not conditions or named sibling alternatives.

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