Robinhood Chain token detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the tool is paid (cost and payment method), which is critical behavioral context. It does not mention authentication or rate limits, but the read-only nature is implied. The cost disclosure adds significant value beyond the parameter schema.

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 concise sentences: first covers purpose and output, second covers cost. No extraneous information. Front-loaded with the most important information.

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?

Given the tool has a single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is complete. It fully explains what the tool returns (all data fields) and the cost, which is essential for an agent to decide to invoke it.

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 one parameter ('address') with a clear description already ('Token contract address (0x...).'). Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond restating the parameter's existence.

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 explicitly states the tool provides 'Detail for one token on Robinhood Chain' and lists the specific data fields (symbol, name, holders, supply, price, market cap, etc.). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like rhchain_token_screener, which would handle multiple tokens.

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 implies usage for obtaining detailed info on a single token by its address, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. The context of sibling tools suggests alternatives for screening, but no direct comparison is provided.

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