Skip to main content
Glama

rhchain_block

Robinhood Chain latest block: number, timestamp, tx count, gas used, base fee. The chain tip for RH Chain (chainId 4663) - the first paid RPC suite for this chain. Send {}. [x402 paid tool — price $0.001; POST /api/rhchain/block]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It reveals the tool is paid ($0.001) and uses POST, and that it returns specific block data. However, it does not disclose rate limits, idempotency, or whether it modifies state. The cost info is helpful.

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?

The description is concise, packing purpose, chain ID, cost, and endpoint into a short sentence. Slight redundancy ('Robinhood Chain latest block' and 'chain tip') but not excessive. Well-structured with key details upfront.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the output fields, chain context, cost, and API method. It is complete enough for an agent to understand what it returns and how to invoke it.

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

Parameters3/5

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

No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds nothing beyond confirming no input is needed ('Send {}'). Baseline score of 3 applies as per guidelines.

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

Purpose4/5

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

Clearly states the tool returns the latest block info (number, timestamp, tx count, gas used, base fee) for RH Chain. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that focus on other aspects like gas prices or transactions, but does not explicitly contrast them.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for retrieving the current block tip but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like rhchain_gas or rhchain_tx. No conditions or prerequisites mentioned.

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

Try in Browser

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.