openfang-rail

Block info

block_info

Read-onlyIdempotent

Latest (or specified) Base block header: number, timestamp, transaction count, base fee. Preflighted so you never pay during an RPC outage.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`block`	No	Block number as hex (0x…) or decimal, or a tag (latest/earliest/pending/finalized/safe); defaults to latest.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tool`	No
`block`	No
`scope`	No
`valid`	Yes
`reason`	No
`tx_count`	No
`retryable`	No
`timestamp`	No
`block_number`	Yes
`base_fee_gwei`	No
`timestamp_iso`	No

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already signal read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds meaningful extra context with 'Preflighted so you never pay during an RPC outage,' disclosing a preflight mechanism and cost-protection guarantee that the annotations do not convey.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two short sentences deliver the core purpose and a valuable behavioral note with no wasted words. The essential return fields are front-loaded, and the preflight benefit appears second without bloating the description.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a simple, read-only, optional-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the purpose, the acceptable input, and an important usage safeguard. Nothing essential for selecting and invoking this tool correctly is missing.

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?

The input schema fully documents the single optional 'block' parameter with format, tag options, and default behavior, so schema coverage is 100%. The description only loosely echoes this with 'or specified,' adding no substantive semantic detail beyond the 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?

The description clearly identifies the tool as returning a Base block header with specific fields (number, timestamp, transaction count, base fee) for the latest or specified block. This precise resource-and-verb framing distinguishes it from the many validation and balance-check siblings.

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?

The description establishes a clear context: use this to get block header information on Base, optionally for a specific block. It does not name alternative tools or explicit exclusions, but the scope is clear enough for an agent to route to it correctly.

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

All openfang-rail tools Inspect

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

A3.8/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct identifier type or data source: every checksum validation is for a specific standard (IBAN, LEI, VAT, etc.), and the on-chain and rental tools are clearly separate domains. There is no ambiguity between tools; even similar-sounding checks like 'luhn_check' and 'ean13_check' are distinct algorithms with explicit descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most validation tools follow a 'X_check' pattern (iban_check, swift_bic_check, ein_format_check), but others deviate: 'company_number_format' uses a noun_noun structure, 'block_info' is noun_noun, and 'batch_validate' and 'context_distill' use verbs. While the pattern is not uniform, the names are readable and the convention is understandable, just not fully consistent.

Tool Count2/5

With 28 tools, this server exceeds the typical 3-15 well-scoped range and even the 16-25 heavy range. The server covers multiple unrelated domains (identifier validation, blockchain queries, rental fraud, text processing), which inflates the count. While each tool is individually justified, the overall surface feels overly broad for a single MCP server.

Completeness4/5

For each sub-domain, coverage is strong: identifier validation includes a wide range of international standards, on-chain queries cover balances, activity, and settlement history, and rental tools provide risk, verdict, and deposit guard. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no country-specific tax IDs beyond what's listed, no transaction history for arbitrary tokens), but the visible coverage is comprehensive for the stated purposes.

Resources

Need Help?