unwatch_coinDelete a Robinhood Chain coin watch by its watch id from my_watches. Use it to stop monitoring a specific coin; requires a Toll key.
Remove one of your coin watches on Robinhood Chain by its id (from my_watches). Needs a Toll key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The watch id (a uuid) from my_watches |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new context by disclosing the 'Toll key' authentication requirement and the Robinhood Chain scope.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the action, scope, identifier source and auth requirement, with no wasted wording.
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 one-parameter destructive tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers action, scope, id provenance and auth; only the post-removal outcome is left implicit.
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% and the schema already documents the id as a uuid from my_watches, so the description's mention of the id adds no meaning beyond the structured field; baseline 3 applies.
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 (Remove) and resource (coin watch) with scope (on Robinhood Chain) and the identifier source (from my_watches), which cleanly separates it from the sibling watch_coin.
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 parenthetical '(from my_watches)' implicitly routes the agent to the sibling that supplies the id, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus watch_coin or what happens if the id is unknown.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.