Robinhood Chain token screener

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool is paid, up to $0.008 USDC.e per call, with automatic payment from a configured wallet. This is valuable context. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what the return data looks like, or any failure/edge-case behavior, leaving gaps.

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?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences. The first states the tool's purpose, and the second warns about the cost and payment mechanism. Every word earns its place, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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?

The tool has three optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must compensate for return expectations and behavioral details. While it covers purpose and cost, it does not explain what data is returned, how holder screening works, or how to configure payment. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to invoke the tool 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters: limit, query, and stockOnly, each with clear descriptions. The tool description itself does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, but it does provide broader context about token types. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool screens tokens on Robinhood Chain by holders, listing tokenized stock tokens and community tokens. The verb 'Screen' and resource 'tokens' are specific, and the 'by holders' criterion adds distinction. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like rhchain_trending or rhchain_token_detail, though the holder-based focus provides some separation.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the tool is paid, but that addresses cost, not usage context. There is no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer use cases from the purpose alone.

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