MoneyTools x402 agent toolkit

Block number at a timestamp

block_at_time

Read-onlyIdempotent

Find the last block at or before a date/time on any of 7 EVM chains (interpolation search). For historical balance queries, snapshots and log ranges. Free: 10 calls/day; then $0.001/call via x402 (MCP params._meta["x402/payment"] or HTTP) or X-API-Key credits. [served by tools.moneytools.dev]

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": {
      "chain": "<chain>",
      "timestamp": "<timestamp>"
    },
    "name": "block_at_time"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`chain`	Yes	chain: base, ethereum, arbitrum, optimism, polygon, bsc, avalanche
`timestamp`	Yes	unix seconds or ISO 8601

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context the annotations cannot express: a 10 calls/day free quota followed by $0.001/call, plus the two payment paths (x402 via params._meta or X-API-Key credits). It stops short of describing failure modes such as timestamps before a chain's genesis block.

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 purpose and selection semantics are front-loaded in the first sentence, with use cases and then the cost/auth mechanics following in priority order. Every sentence carries actionable information, including the pricing sentence.

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?

For a two-parameter read tool with full annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, computation semantics, intended use cases, cost, and the authentication/payment mechanism. Nothing an agent needs in order to decide to call it or to pay for it 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 coverage is 100% and both parameters already carry enumerated chain values and a timestamp format with examples, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only reinforces scope ('7 EVM chains') and the at-or-before selection rule, adding little parameter-level detail beyond the schema.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Find the last block') and states the precise return semantics ('at or before a date/time') plus the scope ('any of 7 EVM chains'), which distinguishes it from unrelated utility siblings like time_convert or number_base.

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?

It names concrete use cases (historical balance queries, snapshots, log ranges), which tells an agent when this tool is the right pick, but it gives no explicit exclusions or named alternative tools for adjacent needs.

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

All MoneyTools x402 agent toolkit 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?