SiteCheck Crypto & Finance

ERC-721 collection activity on Ethereum from Blockscout

crypto_nft_floor_wash_detector

Read-only

ERC-721 collection activity on Ethereum from Blockscout: name, holder count, supply and the newest 50 transfers, with round-trip transfers (a token sent A to B and straight back to A) flagged as possible wash signals. No sale prices, floor price or royalties: this source does not provide them. Related tools on this server, for a different need: crypto_honeypot_detector when you need EVM token honeypot check from honeypot.is: simulated. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "address": "<address>"
    },
    "name": "crypto_nft_floor_wash_detector"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`address`	Yes	ERC-721 contract address on Ethereum, 0x + 40 hex characters

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No
`type`	No
`source`	No
`symbol`	No
`address`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`transfers`	No
`roundTrips`	No
`totalSupply`	No
`holdersCount`	No
`roundTripCount`	No
`transfersChecked`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only cover read-only and open-world; the description adds substantial context beyond them: a hard data window (newest 50 transfers), an explicit list of data the source does not provide, the round-trip A→B→A definition used for wash flagging, and a metered pricing model ($0.002 USDC per successful call via x402, failures not charged). That is exactly the kind of cost and coverage disclosure an agent needs before invoking a paid call.

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?

Front-loaded with the core capability, then caveats, then the sibling pointer, then pricing — a sensible order with no filler sentences. It runs dense, and the pricing/alternative-tool clauses are boilerplate relative to the tool's semantics, which keeps it off a 5.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers scope, data limits, known data gaps, the analytic signal definition and billing. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether to call it and what to expect 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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already states 'ERC-721 contract address on Ethereum, 0x + 40 hex characters'. The description only restates the Ethereum chain constraint, adding no format or validation detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific resource (ERC-721 collection on Ethereum), enumerates the exact payload (name, holder count, supply, newest 50 transfers) and the analytic feature (round-trip transfers flagged as wash signals). It also pre-empts the misleading 'floor' in the tool name by declaring that no floor price, sale price or royalty data is returned.

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 purpose implies a clear when-to-use (checking an NFT collection for wash-trade patterns), and it routes to crypto_honeypot_detector for the adjacent but different need of token honeypot checks. There is no explicit when-not-to-use condition or mention of alternative NFT/transfer tools on this server, so it stops just short of a 5.

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

All SiteCheck Crypto & Finance tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?