Check a coin

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit by disclosing what the analysis actually contains, the verdict taxonomy (AGAINST/CAREFUL/CLEAR/INCOMPLETE), the meaning of INCOMPLETE, and that the first answer line names the chain.

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 verdict and tally explanation is valuable and front-loaded information about findings is decent, but the text repeats 'On Robinhood Chain' three times and packs a long clause-heavy list mid-paragraph. It could be tightened substantially without losing content.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry return-value semantics, and it does reasonably: it lists the finding categories, explains the tally and the verdict line, and warns about partial reads. Only the shape of individual fields (e.g. how 'what the maker holds and sold' is expressed) is left 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3: the schema already explains that chain is 'rh = Robinhood Chain (4663)' and may be omitted for auto-detection. The prose repeats the read target ('Reads Robinhood Chain (4663)') without adding format or behavior detail beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('Check one token on Robinhood Chain') and enumerates the subject matter it reports on (maker, launch record, snipers, bundles, flagged wallets, holdings, burned supply, curve/pool). This clearly separates it from siblings like check_tx, check_agent and check_hook, though the repetitive 'On Robinhood Chain:' phrasing dilutes rather than sharpens the opening.

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?

Implicitly scopes use to a single token contract rather than a transaction or wallet, and gives one useful operational rule: an INCOMPLETE verdict must not be read as clear and 'says when to call again'. It never names an alternative sibling (e.g. dev_record, launch_record) or says when to prefer those, so selection guidance is only partially covered.

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