boo-x402-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Robinhood Chain wallet activity score

rhchain_wallet_score

Get an activity score and tier for any Robinhood Chain wallet address. Identifies wallet engagement level from dormant to very active.

Instructions

Activity score (0-100) and tier (dormant/low/moderate/active/very active) for a Robinhood Chain wallet.

PAID TOOL: up to $0.01 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_wallet_score"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the cost ('PAID TOOL: up to $0.01 USDC per call') which is a behavioral trait, but does not state whether the tool is read-only, has rate limits, or any side effects. The disclosure is helpful but incomplete.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is brief (two sentences) and front-loaded with the key purpose. It could benefit from a clearer separation of details (e.g., output format) but is efficient with no wasted words.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential output (score and tier) and cost. It lacks examples or return format details, but is largely complete given the tool's simplicity.

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 single parameter 'address' is described in the schema as 'Wallet address (0x...).' The description does not add extra meaning beyond this, and schema coverage is 100%, so 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 returns an activity score (0-100) and tier for a Robinhood Chain wallet, using specific terms like 'score', 'tier', and listing possible tier values. This distinguishes it from siblings like rhchain_wallet which likely provides raw wallet data.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wallet_risk, wallet_signal, or rhchain_wallet. The description mentions it is a paid tool but does not explain the trade-offs or context for selection.

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