Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

BitBasic

by com.bitbasic
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Estimate staking rewards

estimate-staking-rewards
Read-onlyIdempotent

What delegating earns on a mainnet, as BitBasic's rewards calculator works it out: the yearly rate for any validator or a chosen one (after its commission), and for an amount, what it earns per day, month, year or a number of days. An estimate from today's rates, without restaking, not a promise or advice.

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": {
      "network": "<network>"
    },
    "name": "estimate-staking-rewards"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
feeNoMina only: the pool's fee in percent, which Mina pools keep off-chain.
daysNoA period in days to estimate for, besides day, month and year.
amountNoWhole tokens to delegate, such as "1000" or "2500.5". Default: rates only.
networkYesA network slug from list-networks (mainnets only).
validatorNoA validator address on that network. Default: the network's rate.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the figures are a snapshot of today's rates, exclude restaking/compounding, and are explicitly not a promise or advice. It does not discuss error or edge-case behavior, but the core caveats an agent needs are present.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the outcome before the disclaimer, with no filler. The first sentence is dense and long, packing several outputs together, but every clause carries substantive information about what is returned.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining returns, which it does by naming the yearly rate and per-day/month/year/period earnings. Combined with the estimate caveats, an agent could invoke and interpret this correctly; only error/edge-case behavior is left unstated.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With schema coverage at 100%, the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by clarifying that the validator rate is net of its commission and by linking amount/days to the periodic earnings output. The Mina-only fee caveat is largely mirrored in the schema, but the commission-net semantics are genuinely additive.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('estimate' staking rewards) and enumerates exactly what is computed: the yearly rate for any or a chosen validator after commission, plus per-day/month/year/days earnings for an amount. This is distinguishable from siblings like validator-details or compare-validators, which do not compute earnings.

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 makes the use case explicit — figuring out what delegating earns on a mainnet — and documents the default behavior (no amount yields rates only; no validator yields the network's rate). It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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

All BitBasic toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources