Token on-chain stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety burden is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: an explicit price ($0.01 USDC on Base), the fact that deployer score is null for tokenized stocks, and that such entries are labelled in a `stock` field. It omits return shape/pagination details, but for a single-record read that is a minor gap.

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?

It is a single dense sentence that front-loads the returned metrics, with the cost tacked on at the end. No sentence is wasted. The nested parenthetical about tokenized stocks makes it slightly harder to parse, but the information density is justified.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry the return-value burden, and it enumerates every metric returned (swaps, WETH volume, unique traders, threshold, deployer score). It also covers the anomalous stock case and the price. Only the exact field names and types remain unspecified.

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?

With one required parameter at 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that the address identifies a Robinhood Chain token and that tokenized-stock contracts produce a different, labelled result — context the bare '0x…' schema doesn't convey.

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 verb+resource: fetch on-chain activity (swap count, WETH volume, unique traders, threshold flag, deployer score) for a Robinhood Chain token. It's an agent can immediately tell this is a token-metrics lookup, not a market or wallet lookup. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from near-siblings like robinx_arc_token (a different chain's token) or robinx_deployer, which it partially overlaps.

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?

Usage is implied by 'for a Robinhood Chain token' and the special-case note about Robinhood's tokenized stocks. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no named alternative (e.g., 'for Arc-chain tokens use robinx_arc_token'). The stock exception hints at boundaries but doesn't route the agent to other tools.

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