boo-mpp-mcp

Robinhood Chain wallet activity score

rhchain_wallet_score

Retrieve a 0-100 activity score and tier for any Robinhood Chain wallet by inputting its address. Assess wallet engagement level instantly.

Instructions

Activity score (0-100) and tier for a Robinhood Chain wallet.

PAID TOOL: up to $0.01 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_wallet_score"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Aug 6, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the paid cost (up to $0.01 USDC.e per call) and the output range (0-100) and tier, which is useful. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, how the score is calculated, or any potential side effects, leaving room for ambiguity.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences that immediately state the tool's purpose and a critical cost caveat. There is no filler or redundant information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides enough context: what it returns (score and tier), the wallet scope, and the paid nature. It does not explain tier labels or edge cases, but these are not essential for basic invocation.

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?

The input schema already fully describes the single parameter 'address' as 'Wallet address (0x...).' The description adds no additional semantic detail about the parameter, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states that the tool provides an 'Activity score (0-100) and tier' for a Robinhood Chain wallet, specifying the resource and output. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve,' and does not differentiate from sibling tools such as rhchain_wallet or wallet_risk.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 alternatives like rhchain_wallet or wallet_risk. The only extra information is the paid-tool notice, which is cost-related rather than usage context.

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