ScorpTech x402 Tools

Evm Block

evm_block

Read-onlyIdempotent

One EVM block by number, tag (latest, safe, finalized, earliest, pending) or hash on Ethereum, Base, Arbitrum, OP Mainnet, Polygon or BNB Chain: timestamp and age, transaction count, gas used/limit and fill %, base fee (gwei), blob gas, fee recipient, size, withdrawals, parent hash, optional transaction hash list. Keyless public RPC, read-only. Price: $0.003 USDC per successful call (x402, Solana). Same tool over HTTPS: GET https://scorptech.it.com/api/x402/v1/evm-block

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "evm_block"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`block`	No	Block number (decimal or 0x hex), a tag (latest, safe, finalized, earliest, pending) or a 32-byte block hash	latest
`chain`	No	eth (default), base, arbitrum, optimism, polygon or bsc (chain ids and common aliases accepted)
`limit`	No	Max transaction hashes when transactions=true
`transactions`	No	Include transaction hashes (first `limit`)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/open-world and non-destructive, so the description is not repeating them verbatim, but it adds information the annotations cannot: keyless RPC (no auth setup), $0.003 USDC per *successful* call via x402 on Solana, and a parallel HTTPS endpoint. Gaps remain on failure behavior and rate limits, but the auth/cost model — the most consequential unknown for an agent — is disclosed.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the return-field inventory and then operational facts (keyless, price, URL). The field list is dense but justified because no output schema exists; only the repeated chain enumeration (once in prose, again implicit in the schema) is mildly redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden itself and does so field by field, plus pricing and transport details. What is missing is modest: error/empty-result behavior (e.g. unknown hash) and any rate-limit note for a paid read tool.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents block tags, chain aliases, the limit maximum, and the transactions toggle in equal or greater detail than the description. The description's mention of 'optional transaction hash list' adds only light reinforcement, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: 'One EVM block by number, tag ... or hash' across six named chains, and enumerates exactly what the response contains. This is enough for an agent to prefer it over evm_tx_info or evm_logs, but it never names a sibling, so the distinction relies on the agent inferring it from the resource noun.

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?

Usage context is present but indirect: chains supported, transaction-hash inclusion via `transactions`, and a note that the same data is available over HTTPS. There is no explicit 'use this when / use X instead when' routing, and no guidance on when to pick 'latest' vs a specific number or when including transactions is worthwhile.

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

All ScorpTech x402 Tools tools Inspect

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

Need Help?