Fresh calls by measured early-callers

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations: discloses a per-call price ($0.02 USDC on Base), the exact default filter semantics and rule version, the exclusion of coordinated clusters, and an important caveat that measured records are backward-looking. These are non-obvious operational facts an agent needs before calling.

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 and polling mechanics, and every sentence has content. The ranked parenthetical is dense with jargon but that density is information-bearing rather than 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 still covers what each item returns (caller's full measured record plus the token's deployer score and FDV), the pagination mechanism, the default filtering, and the cost — everything needed to invoke it 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 coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented. The description only restates the min_rank_score default/grade mapping and mentions the cursor, adding little beyond the schema; the 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?

States a specific verb+resource: a pollable stream of fresh Robinhood Chain calls filtered by a measured early-caller record, with the concrete default rule (rank_score >= 0.3, Wilson lower bound, >= 4 graded calls, clusters excluded). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the close sibling robinx_feed, so an agent must infer the difference.

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 explicit polling guidance ("use since=<cursor from a prior call> to poll for only-new calls") and names the default filter regime, but offers no when-to-use/when-not or routing to alternatives like robinx_feed or robinx_caller_calls. Usage is implied rather than compared against siblings.

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