RobinX coverage stats (free)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that: the 'free' tier (no auth/cost concern) and the external chain scope (Robinhood Chain, chain 4663), which explains the openWorldHint. Return shape is only implied by the metric list.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's identity and consistently enumerating outputs before the usage hint. Every clause carries information; nothing is repeated from the title or annotations.

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 usefully enumerates the stat categories so an agent knows what comes back, and the chain id anchors the domain. It could state the response format (counts vs. nested object) or whether stats are point-in-time, but it is sufficient for an agent to call a zero-arg read 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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the description correctly spends no words on inputs. Baseline 4 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 ('free coverage stats for RobinX') and enumerates the exact metrics returned (deployers scored, tokens indexed, real tokens, insider-linked wallets, serial-spam factories), plus the chain (4663). This clearly separates it from the per-entity siblings (robinx_deployer, robinx_token, robinx_verdict), though it never names them.

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?

'Good first call to see what the index covers' gives clear orientation guidance for when to invoke it. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or naming the follow-up tools an agent should call after checking coverage.

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