Robinhood Chain token screener

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses the tool is paid with specific cost details, adding transparency beyond the schema. However, it does not mention read-only nature, rate limits, or other behavioral traits, 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 highly concise and well-structured: two sentences for purpose and filters, then a separate line for cost. No wasted words, and the key 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?

For a simple tool with few parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, filters, and cost. However, it lacks clarity on what 'by holders' means (e.g., sorting criteria) and does not mention any return format, which would enhance completeness.

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 baseline is 3. The description restates the filter options but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema descriptions. Parameters are adequately documented but not enhanced.

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, specifying types (stock tokens and meme tokens) and available filters. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like rhchain_token_detail or rhchain_trending, which could cause ambiguity.

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 by mentioning filters (stockOnly, query) and the paid nature, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives, nor does it state when not to use this tool. Sibling tools exist that may serve overlapping purposes.

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