boo-x402-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Robinhood Chain token burn stats

rhchain_burn

Retrieve burn stats for any token on Robinhood Chain, including amount sent to burn addresses and percentage of total supply burned. Verify deflationary claims.

Instructions

Burn stats for a token on Robinhood Chain: amount sent to burn addresses (0x0, 0x...dEaD) and % of total supply burned. Use to verify deflationary claims.

PAID TOOL: up to $0.005 USDC per call (x402 on Base). 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 observedv1.0.0Jul 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Without annotations, the description discloses that the tool is paid (up to $0.005 USDC per call) and mentions the return values (burn amounts, percentage). It does not contradict any annotations (none provided).

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 concise: one sentence for functionality and one for pricing. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the purpose, use case, and cost. It does not detail the response format or edge cases, but it is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 has one parameter, 'address', with a description that already explains it as a token contract address. The description adds minimal extra meaning (specifying Robinhood Chain context), but since schema coverage is 100%, a 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's purpose: providing burn stats (amount sent to burn addresses and percentage of total supply burned) for a token on Robinhood Chain. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rhchain_token_detail or rhchain_token_screener, which focus on other aspects.

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 explicitly says 'Use to verify deflationary claims,' giving a clear use case. While it does not mention when not to use this tool or alternative tools, the context from sibling names makes the differentiation implicit.

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