Should my agent depend on the MCP server app.ottodata/otto?

Verdict: allow — rich-solo — safe to depend on As of 2026-08-16T06:17:03Z: a dated observation with receipts, not a warranty.

Otto Data — Robinhood Chain

app.ottodata/otto

Live Robinhood Chain tokenized-stock data: basis vs NASDAQ, gaps, pools, whale flows.

— the operator's own registry description reported

Publisher app.ottodata · first seen 2026-08-12 · endpoint https://api.ottodata.app/mcp

allow

verdict

rich-solo

cluster

ok_tools

answers

tools served

Dependency rating derived

allow
allow — alive & usable · retrieval-public ● · V3 has answer key ◐

allow — because answers ●, 39 tools legible (band B) ●, no confirmed drift in 3 probes ●; not yet checked: truth (2 attempts unverifiable, 0 disagreements)

Cluster rich-solo · distinctiveness 0.644 (unusual). Every figure is a percentile or class within the 11,363-server census — see the whole spectrum.

Does it answer? Q1 · observed

answersalive_tools

latency144 ms

vs populationtypical

protocolcurrent

authopen

Can it be used? Q4 · observed

tools39

vs populationhigh

capabilities4

harnessB

Did it hold when checked? Q3–Q4 · derived

identitysolo

servers on its host1

verifiabilityunassessed

duplicate inventoryno

drift events0

answers true0/0 agree

🔏 Signed receipt rr_2943b7e14c6942c41322433d · ed25519 · key rs-rcpt-2026-08 — this rating is tamper-evident; an agent gets the full signature from check_server and can verify it against the published key.

Q1Does it answer?alive & usable — 3 probes ●evidence ↓

Q2What is it?retrieval-public ● evidence ↓

Q3Can it be checked?V3 has answer key ◐evidence ↓

Q4Did it hold?harness B · truth not yet run · no drift ●evidence ↓

Q5What company does it keep?rich-solo · 1 on its host (context, not verdict) ◐evidence ↓

● observed · ◐ derived · ○ reported — the verdict synthesizes Q1–Q4; Q5 is context. Methodology →

History observed

Every probe we made, oldest → newest (3 shown, 2026-08-12 → 2026-08-16). Green answered · amber answered-but-walled · red no useful answer. A gap in our cadence is a gap in coverage, not evidence about the server.

changelog (2 events)

date	type	what changed
2026-08-16	outcome	ok_tools (was http_error)
2026-08-12	outcome	first probe: http_error

What kind of tools these are derived

Verification only means something relative to a tool's NATURE — an email-sender has no "true answer", a generator has no answer key. Classification evidence: classified from tool names/descriptions/annotations WE OBSERVED. What checking applies to each kind (the full methodology →):

nature	tools	meaning	what checking applies
retrieval-public	34	serves public facts	truth-checkable against a public source — the V-ladder applies in full
action	3	changes the world	no true answer exists; we check the CONTRACT (destructive/read-only/idempotent declarations, error legibility) and never fire real actions
computational	1	deterministic transforms	self-checkable by re-computation and known-answer tests
orchestration	1	routes other tools	identity + fronted-service disclosure checks (gateway vs costume)

Tools last seen observed

agent_performance agent_position_book chain_deployments chain_stats competition_leaderboard competition_my_portfolio competition_paper_trade execute_onchain_swap flow_summary funding_carry_signals gap_trade_signals hood_attention hood_basis_history hood_basis_snapshot hood_earnings_risk hood_feeds hood_gap_sessions hood_gaps_live hood_gaps_summary hood_off_hours_catalysts hood_pools hood_quote hood_sector_rotation hood_stock_research hood_ticker_brief market_events narrative_trade_signals oracle_deviation partner_my_trades partner_report_fill partner_swap_quote perp_funding perp_spot_basis reddit_alpha_signals reddit_market_regime report_agent_status service_status stable_risk token_flows

Harness readiness observed

Can an agent's harness pick this tool and call it correctly? Graded on the three things an agent reads — name, description, typed parameters. Band B — usable, with rough edges.

legibility check	tools passing	ok
name is clear & specific	39/39	✓
has a description	39/39	✓
description is substantive	39/39	✓
parameters are typed	39/39	✓
parameters are described	8/39	8/39

39 of 39 tools graded · 39 with a captured input schema. RS-008, Tier-1 — no domain knowledge, applies to any tool. “Alive” is not the same as “usable”.

Truth checks observed

Not yet confirmed — 2 attempt(s) currently unverifiable (rate limits, walls, or unmappable schemas — never counted against the server) · 0 disagreements.

claim class	key	verdict	primary source
tariff-duty	0901.21.00	unverifiable	us-hts
tariff-duty	6109.10.00	unverifiable	us-hts

Protocol conformance observed

2025-06-18

protocol version

—

session model

1.29.0

server version otto-data

Capabilities: experimental prompts resources tools

Drift observed

No confirmed drift on record. Baseline set 2026-08-16; changes appear here after human review.

raw probe records

probed (UTC)	outcome	http	ms	protocol
2026-08-16T06:11:19Z	ok_tools	200	144	2025-06-18
2026-08-14T19:57:46Z	http_error	503	173
2026-08-12T05:33:03Z	http_error	503	363

Watch or embed this verdict

Operators: put the live verdict in your README — it updates with every census, links back here, and is a dated observation, never a warranty:

[![Robin Saige verdict](https://robinsaige.com/badge/app.ottodata/otto.svg)](https://robinsaige.com/s/app.ottodata/otto)

Depend on it? Subscribe to its change feed — outcome changes and confirmed drift, no account needed. Building on it? The full dossier as JSON — verdict, rating, truth checks, history — stable enough to gate CI on.

← overview

Operator of this server? Everything we hold about it is on this page — free, no account, for anyone. Wrong attribution, stale probe, misclassification? Dispute this record →