openfang-rail

Tx activity (count + contract check)

tx_activity

Read-onlyIdempotent

On-chain activity snapshot for an address: total outbound transaction count (nonce), whether the address is a contract (eth_getCode), and a first-funded heuristic (nonce > 0). Preflighted so you never pay during an RPC outage.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`address`	Yes	EVM address, 0x-prefixed.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tool`	No
`scope`	No
`valid`	Yes
`address`	Yes
`tx_count`	Yes
`is_contract`	No
`first_funded_heuristic`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedSep 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context by explaining the exact data sources (nonce, eth_getCode) and the preflight guarantee that prevents paying during RPC outages. No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense, front-loaded sentences: the first summarizes the result set, the second adds an important operational guarantee. There is no filler or redundant repetition of schema details.

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?

With one required parameter, full schema coverage, and an output schema available, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does and how it behaves. Nothing essential to selecting or invoking the tool is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the single address parameter already documented as a 0x-prefixed EVM address. The tool description names the address as the subject but adds no extra format or usage semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 identifies a specific resource (an EVM address) and exactly what the tool reports: total outbound transaction count, contract status via eth_getCode, and a nonce-based first-funded heuristic. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling balance/validation tools.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The intended use is implied by the on-chain activity framing and the note about preflighting during RPC outages. However, there is no explicit statement about when to choose this tool over siblings like balance_check, erc20_balance, or block_info.

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

All openfang-rail tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Each tool targets a distinct identifier type or on-chain data source, and composite wrappers like batch_validate and vendor_onboarding_pack are clearly labeled as batch operations. Minor confusion is possible among on-chain snapshot tools like balance_check, erc20_balance, and tx_activity, but the descriptions mostly resolve the boundaries.

Naming Consistency4/5

Validators largely follow a predictable *_check suffix, with occasional format/validate variants like ein_format_check and company_number_format. On-chain and rental tools break the pattern with descriptive nouns such as block_info, tx_activity, and rental_verdict, so the naming is not perfectly uniform but remains navigable.

Tool Count3/5

23 tools is a heavy surface for one server, spanning three distinct clusters: identifier validation, Base-chain inspection, and rental due diligence. Each tool has a clear purpose, but the set feels broad and could be split into smaller purpose-focused servers.

Completeness4/5

The identifier validation surface is well covered across many international formats and includes useful batch/package workflows. Minor gaps exist, such as no registry existence lookup for UK company numbers and no generic transaction-status tool, but the core due-diligence workflows are not left with dead ends.

Resources

Need Help?