Skip to main content
Glama

x402-services

by ai.firmbrain

rh_verify

Canonical contract verification for Robinhood Stock Tokens: given a ticker, returns the ONE official Robinhood Chain contract address (cross-checked live against the onchain symbol); or given an address, confirms whether it is the canonical token or an impostor. Send { ticker } or { address }. The anti-scam authenticity oracle for agents trading tokenized equities. [x402 paid tool — price $0.05; POST /api/rh/verify]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tickerNoStock/ETF ticker to look up, e.g. NVDA
addressNo0x contract address to verify as canonical or impostor

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Discloses live cross-checking, cost ($0.05), and endpoint. No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. Missing details on rate limits, authentication, or reversibility, but adequate for a read-only verification tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Information-dense paragraph with clear first sentence. Could be broken into bullet points, but no wasted words. Appropriate length.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema, but description implies return type (address or impostor status). Missing return format details, error handling, or behavior when neither parameter provided.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage 100% with descriptions for both parameters. Description adds mutual exclusivity context and clarifies each parameter's outcome, supplementing schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly specifies two use cases: given a ticker returns official address, given an address confirms canonical or impostor. Verb 'verify' plus resource 'canonical contract for RH tokens' distinguishes from siblings like rhchain_contract.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

States input formats ('Send { ticker } or { address }') and labels itself as anti-scam oracle. Does not explicitly exclude scenarios or compare to siblings, but context implies intended use.

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

All x402-services toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools are organized by domain prefix (e.g., 'crypto_', 'rh_', 'snipe_'), which helps distinguish between areas. Within each domain, they serve distinct purposes, though some overlap between domains exists (e.g., price data appears in multiple groups). Overall, an agent can navigate effectively.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with a domain prefix and a verb_noun combination (e.g., 'compliance_risk', 'rh_stock', 'snipe_honeypot'). This makes the API predictable and easy to explore.

Tool Count2/5

With 159 tools, the server is extremely large. While the broad scope of web3 and utility functions justifies many tools, the count is significantly above the typical range for a coherent toolkit, potentially overwhelming agents and increasing selection error.

Completeness4/5

The toolkit covers a wide range of web3 operations: crypto, DeFi, compliance, safety, scheduling, memory, etc. There are no obvious major gaps for its intended purpose, though some niche areas might be missing.

Resources