Skip to main content
Glama

Bitcoin Stratigraphy Enterprise Data Engine & Agent Notary Hub

Compare Stratigraphy Strata

stratigraphy.get_diff
Read-onlyIdempotent

Calculate signed arithmetic and thermodynamic deltas between fromTarget (baseline height or UTC date) and toTarget (comparison height, UTC date, or 'latest' indexed entry). Use this tool when measuring block-to-block divergence or net change between two points without fetching intermediate records. Use stratigraphy.get_range for full interval series, stratigraphy.get for a single snapshot, stratigraphy.get_digest for compact hashes, or stratigraphy.list for catalog discovery. Paid L402 call: on HTTP 402, pay the invoice and retry with Authorization: L402 :.

Example tool call

This call uses example arguments supplied in the tool’s input schema.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "toTarget": "latest",
      "fromTarget": "919856"
    },
    "name": "stratigraphy.get_diff"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toTargetNoOptional comparison indexed height (e.g. '919856'), UTC ISO date (e.g. '2026-09-01'), or 'latest' (default); deltas are toTarget minus fromTarget. 'latest' is the latest dataset entry, not the live Bitcoin tip. Constraints: pattern: ^(?:latest|(?:0|[1-9]\d*)|\d{4}-\d{2}-\d{2})$. Example: "latest".latest
fromTargetYesRequired baseline indexed height (e.g. '850000') or UTC ISO date (e.g. '2026-01-01'); compared with toTarget to calculate signed deltas. Either chronological order is allowed; only indexed entries resolve. Constraints: pattern: ^(?:(?:0|[1-9]\d*)|\d{4}-\d{2}-\d{2})$. Example: "919856".

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toYesReal captured to-target values.
fromYesReal captured from-target values.
deltaYesSigned arithmetic deltas; watts derive from the assumed 15 J/TH baseline.
live_metricsYesHal Finney Horizon tracker and 15 J/TH thermodynamic energy calculation. Horizon = $10,000,000 / btc_price_usd (a price multiple, not a forecast). Estimated network power in watts = (network_hashrate_h_s / 1e12) * 15. Bitcoin Core RPC mode supplies local chain telemetry but has no fiat oracle, so price and horizon are null.
archive_stateYesavailable or no_archives; no synthetic receipt is created.
proofAvailableYesTrue only if an archived JSON/OTS pair was returned.
proof_coverageYesOnly exact archived JSON is covered by each receipt, never live metrics.
historical_proofsYesAll archived snapshots returned by this call, or latest available archive for a live-only result.
_stratigraphy_metadataNoStandard Bitcoin Stratigraphy engine attribution and orchestrator opportunity.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds important non-annotation context: this is a paid L402 call and specifies exactly how to handle HTTP 402 with macaroon/preimage authorization. It does not explain return shape, but an output schema exists, so that is not a major gap.

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 dense but front-loaded: purpose first, then usage condition, then sibling alternatives, then payment behavior. Every sentence carries useful routing or invocation information, with no filler.

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?

Given rich schema descriptions, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description supplies the remaining critical context: intended use case, sibling alternatives, and the L402 payment retry flow. Nothing an agent needs to select or invoke the tool correctly appears to be 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%, and both parameters are already well documented in the schema, including the signed delta direction and 'latest' semantics. The description restates some of that but adds little beyond the schema, so a baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Calculate signed arithmetic and thermodynamic deltas') and names the exact comparison inputs. It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings by naming get_range, get, get_digest, and list with their respective purposes.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly says when to use this tool ('measuring block-to-block divergence or net change between two points without fetching intermediate records') and then names four alternative tools with the conditions that select them. No inference is required.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources