Read-only MCP server for Robinhood Chain token discovery, research, and due diligence via GMGN.
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Average 3/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored. Lowest: 2.4/5.
Each tool serves a distinct function: comparison, listing, research, brief, kline, trending, and screening. No overlap in purposes.
All tools follow the pattern 'hoodly_verb_noun' with descriptive names, consistently using snake_case and a research-oriented verb prefix.
7 tools is well within the ideal range, covering the full research lifecycle for Robinhood Chain tokens without being excessive.
The toolset covers discovery, research, comparison, market data, and screening, leaving no significant gaps for a read-only research server.
hoodly_compare_robinhood_tokensCInspectRead-only comparison of 2–5 Robinhood Chain token contracts using lightweight GMGN fundamentals and security data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| addresses | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description labels the tool as 'read-only' but fails to disclose other behavioral traits such as rate limits, data freshness, error handling for invalid addresses, or whether it makes external API calls. With no annotations, the description should carry more weight.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is concise and front-loaded. However, it could be slightly more structured with separate lines for parameter hints or usage notes.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the comparison output format, what 'fundamentals and security data' entails, or how to interpret results. An agent would lack complete context for confident invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage for parameters is 0%. The description repeats the schema's min/max items (2–5) but does not explain the format or meaning of the addresses beyond what the pattern suggests. No additional context for the parameter is provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it performs a read-only comparison of 2-5 Robinhood Chain token contracts, specifying data sources (GMGN fundamentals and security). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list, research, or trending.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like hoodly_research_robinhood_token for individual token depth or hoodly_list_robinhood_launches for overview. Lacks when-not-to-use advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
hoodly_list_robinhood_launchesBInspectRead-only discovery of newly created, near-completion, or graduated Robinhood Chain launchpad tokens. This is chain-wide, not Pons-only provenance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| stage | No | new_creation | |
| minLiquidityUsd | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It indicates read-only behavior but does not disclose other traits such as rate limits, pagination, error handling, or data ordering. The behavioral transparency is minimal beyond the read-only hint.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with only two sentences, no fluff. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing stages). It is front-loaded with the key purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description should explain what the response contains, but it does not. The input schema is partially addressed but not fully. The tool description is incomplete for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain any of the three parameters (limit, stage, minLiquidityUsd). Although 'stage' values are hinted in the text ('newly created, near-completion, or graduated'), there is no explicit mapping or explanation of the other parameters, leaving the agent without needed context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it is a read-only discovery tool for Robinhood Chain launchpad tokens, specifying the stages (newly created, near-completion, graduated) and noting it is chain-wide, not Pons-only. This differentiates it from sibling tools that may be Pons-specific or have different scopes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for discovering launchpad tokens in various stages and clarifies it is chain-wide, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'hoodly_screen_robinhood_launchpads' or 'hoodly_robinhood_trending'. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
hoodly_research_robinhood_tokenAInspectRead-only multi-source GMGN token due diligence on Robinhood Chain. Returns observations and a deterministic research score, never a trading directive.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | ||
| holderLimit | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It declares the tool is 'read-only' (safe, non-mutating), 'multi-source' (data aggregation), and 'never a trading directive' (disclaims advice). This provides good behavioral context beyond the input schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, concise and front-loaded with the essential purpose. Every word adds value: 'read-only', 'multi-source', 'GMGN token due diligence', 'Robinhood Chain', and the disclaimer. No wasted text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate for a simple research operation but lacks parameter explanations and usage guidance. It mentions returns ('observations and a deterministic research score') but no detail on output structure, which could help agents parse results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no meaning for the two parameters (address, holderLimit). It does not explain what address is for (the token contract) or how holderLimit affects results. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it is a 'read-only multi-source GMGN token due diligence' tool for Robinhood Chain, specifying its action (research/analysis) and the resource (a token). It differentiates from siblings by focusing on a single token deep-dive versus comparison, listing, daily brief, kline, trending, or screening operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides context (token due diligence) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. The sibling list implies use for single-token research, but no direct comparisons or exclusion criteria are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
hoodly_robinhood_daily_briefCInspectRead-only briefing combining new Robinhood launches and 24-hour trending data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| launchLimit | No | ||
| trendingLimit | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Only behavioral trait disclosed is 'Read-only', which indicates no side effects. No annotations exist, so description carries full burden; it fails to mention authorization needs, rate limits, or output format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is concise but lacks key information. Conciseness alone does not make it effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description is severely incomplete. A combining tool needs to explain what the output contains and how limits affect it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 0% description coverage and the description does not mention the parameters (launchLimit, trendingLimit) or their meaning. The agent is left to guess what these limits control.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it provides a read-only briefing combining Robinhood launches and trending data. This distinguishes it from separate tools for launches and trending, though it doesn't explicitly name siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this combined tool versus the individual launch or trending tools. Does not mention prerequisites or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
hoodly_robinhood_token_klineBInspectRead-only OHLCV/K-line history for a Robinhood Chain token; useful to distinguish fresh activity from sustained momentum.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | ||
| resolution | No | 5m |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are given, so the description carries full burden. It declares the tool is 'read-only' (non-destructive) but provides no further behavioral details such as rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens if inputs are invalid. For a read operation, more context would be helpful.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with two concise clauses; it is front-loaded and free of fluff. However, it sacrifices parameter details for brevity, balancing conciseness with completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return format, pagination, or error behavior. The agent lacks critical context for correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description must fully explain the parameters. It does not mention the 'address' parameter (token contract address) or the 'resolution' parameter (time intervals like 30s, 1m, etc.). The enumeration and default are entirely absent from the description, leaving the AI agent without guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it returns 'OHLCV/K-line history' for a token, which is a specific data type. Among sibling tools (e.g., research, trending, compare), this is the only one providing historical price data, so it is well-differentiated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'useful to distinguish fresh activity from sustained momentum' hints at a use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like hoodly_research_robinhood_token or hoodly_robinhood_trending. No when-not or alternative naming is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
hoodly_robinhood_trendingCInspectRead-only Robinhood Chain trending tokens from GMGN.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| interval | No | 1h |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description labels the tool as 'Read-only', which appropriately signals non-destructive behavior. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden for transparency. However, it does not disclose other important traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or data freshness. The read-only mention is helpful but insufficient for full behavioral clarity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the tool's function. It is concise and avoids unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly expanded to include parameter hints without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of an output schema, the description should hint at the return format (e.g., a list of token objects with properties like name, symbol, price). It also does not mention behavior like empty results or error handling. For a simple tool with two parameters, the description is incomplete for an agent to fully understand what to expect from the response.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has two parameters (limit and interval) with zero description coverage. The tool description does not explain the meaning or usage of these parameters. While the defaults and enum hints provide some inference, an agent would benefit from explicit guidance on how 'limit' controls the number of tokens returned and what each 'interval' value means for the trending calculation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Robinhood Chain trending tokens from GMGN' and declares it as read-only. This clearly identifies the resource and action (retrieving trending tokens), distinguishing it from siblings like 'hoodly_list_robinhood_launches' which lists launches. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', which would make the purpose more precise.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. There are six sibling tools with different functionalities (compare, research, daily brief, kline, launches, launchpads), but no criteria are given for selecting 'trending tokens' over them. This omission leaves the agent to guess the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
hoodly_screen_robinhood_launchpadsBInspectRead-only quality screen across all Robinhood Chain launchpads. Uses GMGN server-side filters; this tool never executes a trade.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| stage | No | new_creation | |
| profile | No | safe | |
| maxRugRatio | No | ||
| minLiquidityUsd | No | ||
| minSmartMoneyCount | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states 'never executes a trade' (read-only), but omits details on data source, rate limits, filter behavior, or how 'quality' is determined. Minimal disclosure beyond safety.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and safety ('Read-only... never executes a trade'). Every word is efficient, no redundancy, and it earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It does not explain output format, how filters work, or how to use the parameters effectively. The agent lacks critical information for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist in the schema. The description does not explain any of the six parameters (limit, stage, profile, maxRugRatio, minLiquidityUsd, minSmartMoneyCount). It adds no semantic value beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Read-only quality screen across all Robinhood Chain launchpads', specifying the verb 'screen' and the resource 'launchpads'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like hoodly_list_robinhood_launches and hoodly_robinhood_trending by focusing on quality screening.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for read-only screening without executing trades, but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings like hoodly_compare_robinhood_tokens or hoodly_research_robinhood_token. Guidance is implicit, not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Sign in to create a connector for this server.