boo-mpp-mcp

Robinhood Chain token burn stats

rhchain_burn

Check burn stats for a token on Robinhood Chain: get amount sent to burn addresses and % of total supply burned to verify deflationary claims.

Instructions

Burn stats for a token on Robinhood Chain: amount sent to burn addresses and % of total supply burned. Verifies deflationary claims.

PAID TOOL: up to $0.005 USDC.e per call (MPP on Tempo). Paid automatically from your configured wallet.

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": "rhchain_burn"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`address`	Yes	Token contract address (0x...).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Aug 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the paid nature ('up to $0.005 USDC.e per call') and automatic payment, which are critical behavioral traits. It also states the output (amount and percentage), but does not mention whether the call is read-only or any external side effects.

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 paragraphs: the first explains functionality in one sentence, the second provides essential cost/payment info. No fluff, and the line break aids readability.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description names the two key values returned (amount burned, % of total supply) and the verification purpose. It includes cost/payment details, making it complete for a simple single-parameter tool.

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 coverage is 100% (address described as 'Token contract address'), and the description adds no additional parameter detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool provides 'Burn stats for a token on Robinhood Chain: amount sent to burn addresses and % of total supply burned.' This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like token_supply or token_rugcheck, focusing on deflationary claims.

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 implies usage by saying 'Verifies deflationary claims,' giving a clear contextual use case. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternative tools, but the purpose is clear enough to guide selection among similar tools.

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