openfang-rail

Tx activity (count + contract check)

tx_activity

Read-onlyIdempotent

On-chain activity snapshot for an address: total outbound transaction count (nonce), whether the address is a contract (eth_getCode), and a first-funded heuristic (nonce > 0). Preflighted so you never pay during an RPC outage.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`address`	Yes	EVM address, 0x-prefixed.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tool`	No
`scope`	No
`valid`	Yes
`address`	Yes
`tx_count`	Yes
`is_contract`	No
`first_funded_heuristic`	No

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context by explaining the exact data sources (nonce, eth_getCode) and the preflight guarantee that prevents paying during RPC outages. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is two dense, front-loaded sentences: the first summarizes the result set, the second adds an important operational guarantee. There is no filler or redundant repetition of schema details.

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?

With one required parameter, full schema coverage, and an output schema available, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does and how it behaves. Nothing essential to selecting or invoking the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single address parameter already documented as a 0x-prefixed EVM address. The tool description names the address as the subject but adds no extra format or usage semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 identifies a specific resource (an EVM address) and exactly what the tool reports: total outbound transaction count, contract status via eth_getCode, and a nonce-based first-funded heuristic. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling balance/validation tools.

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 intended use is implied by the on-chain activity framing and the note about preflighting during RPC outages. However, there is no explicit statement about when to choose this tool over siblings like balance_check, erc20_balance, or block_info.

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?