Full token report

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely new context: a $0.05 USDC cost on Base (a payment prerequisite) and the conditional nature of the supply-forensics section ('if computed'). It stops short of describing payload size, latency, or what happens when a section can't be computed.

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 dense sentences, each carrying a distinct payload: what's inside, when to call it, what it costs, and the free alternative. Content is front-loaded on the report contents and there is no 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values and does so section by section, including conditional fields. Minor gaps remain around cost mechanics (how payment is settled) and error behavior, but an agent knows what it will get and what it will pay.

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 and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the token address format and its required status. The description adds nothing about the token parameter beyond saying reports apply to Robinhood Chain tokens — baseline 3.

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 ('FULL token report in one call') and enumerates the payload sections: verdict with reasons, deployer record + launch history, token vitals, X callers with metrics, paper-basket status, supply forensics. That enumeration implicitly distinguishes it from subset siblings like robinx_verdict, robinx_deployer, robinx_basket and robinx_structure, though none are named explicitly.

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 single best first call on any Robinhood Chain token' is an explicit routing recommendation, and the free web-page alternative is named for users who don't want to pay. It lacks an explicit 'use robinx_verdict instead if you only need X' exclusion, which is why it isn't a 5.

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