0xrhXBT — Robinhood Chain Intelligence
Server Details
Robinhood Chain intelligence: trend scores, launch radar, KOL leaderboard, pre-trade risk checks.
- Status
- Unhealthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
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.
Tool Definition Quality
Score is being calculated. Check back soon.
Available Tools
8 toolscheck_token_riskAInspect
Pre-trade risk readout for a Robinhood Chain token by symbol or 0x address — designed to be called BEFORE placing a trade elsewhere (e.g. via robinhood agentic trading). Returns observed data only, never a buy/sell recommendation: liquidity/volume/holders, rug-guard status, launch-radar assessment when available (riskGate pass|watch|fail, opportunity 0-100, data confidence, risk flags, paid-promotion flag), and the estimated one-shot exit price impact for your trade size. Unknown values are null, never fabricated.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| trade_size_usd | No | intended trade size in USD for exit-impact estimate (default 2000) | |
| symbol_or_address | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Thoroughly describes what it returns (liquidity, volume, holders, rug-guard, launch-radar assessment, exit price impact) and notes unknown values are null, never fabricated.
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 paragraph, front-loaded with purpose, but slightly dense; could be broken into lists but acceptable.
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 or output schema, description covers all needed context: purpose, parameters, return fields, and behavioral constraints.
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?
Adds meaning beyond schema: explains trade_size_usd is for exit-impact estimate with default 2000, and symbol_or_address is token by symbol or 0x address.
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 is a pre-trade risk readout for a token by symbol or address, distinguishing it from siblings like get_token or get_intel.
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?
Explicitly says it is designed to be called BEFORE placing a trade and that it returns observed data only, never a buy/sell recommendation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_chain_statsAInspect
Latest Robinhood Chain stats: TVL, 24h DEX volume, stablecoin mcap, transactions today, total addresses.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only lists output fields and does not mention that the tool is inherently read-only, whether it requires specific permissions, or what errors may occur (e.g., if the chain is not supported).
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 that efficiently conveys all necessary information. Every word adds value, and the key elements are front-loaded ('Latest Robinhood Chain stats'). No extraneous 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's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It lists output fields but does not specify data types, order, or example values. For a stats endpoint, this might be sufficient, but additional context like update frequency or data source would improve completeness.
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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so the description need not explain parameter meaning. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description meets this by focusing on what the output contains.
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 explicitly states the tool returns 'Latest Robinhood Chain stats' and lists five specific metrics: TVL, 24h DEX volume, stablecoin mcap, transactions today, total addresses. This clearly defines the action and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools that operate on individual tokens or risks.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., get_trending_tokens, get_token). The description does not mention any prerequisites, limitations, or alternative contexts, leaving the agent to infer use cases from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_intelInspect
Recent intel signals (volume spikes, whale transfers, stock-token oracle divergence, depegs, tvl moves...) with severity 1-5 and provenance. Optionally filter by category.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| category | No |
get_kol_leaderboardInspect
Robinhood Chain KOL leaderboard — accounts ranked ONLY by verified onchain call performance (never followers): one call per contract, entry priced at the first post-tweet observation, +50% peak = win, rug-shills heavily penalized, minimum 3 verified calls to rank. Includes the on-watch bench (call evidence captured, sample still too small to rank).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | max rows (default 20) |
get_launch_radarInspect
Launch radar: early-stage Robinhood Chain candidates discovered from X chatter + onchain scans, each with the three-output assessment (riskGate pass|watch|fail, opportunity 0-100 or blocked, data confidence high|medium|low), safety score, liquidity and paid-promotion flag. A high score means 'nothing obviously wrong observed onchain', never 'guaranteed legit'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | max rows (default 20) | |
| status | No |
get_narrativesInspect
Current narratives ranked by mindshare: static categories plus LLM-named dynamic clusters of co-moving tokens, with stability labels (flash/fresh/persistent/durable) and member symbols.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
get_tokenAInspect
Full detail for one token by symbol (e.g. TSLA, CASHCAT) or 0x address: latest snapshot, compact trend history, recent intel signals, whale transfers. Canonical Robinhood stock tokens win symbol collisions over memecoin impersonators.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol_or_address | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full transparency burden. It discloses returned data categories and collision resolution, but omits error handling, rate limits, or authentication requirements.
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?
Two compact sentences, front-loaded with action and resource, no redundant words.
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?
Despite no output schema, the description lists key data components (snapshot, trends, intel, whale transfers), providing reasonable completeness for a fetch-by-identifier tool.
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 is 0%, so description must explain parameters. It defines 'symbol_or_address' with examples and length constraints, adding significant meaning beyond the schema.
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 specifies the tool retrieves full details for one token by symbol or address, listing specific data types and collision resolution, distinguishing it from sibling tools.
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?
Provides examples of input (symbols, addresses) and mentions collision handling, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_trending_tokensInspect
Ranked trending tokens on Robinhood Chain by trendScore (0-100, z-scores vs each token's own 7d baseline). Includes price, 24h volume, holders, trajectory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | max rows (default 20) |
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.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!