Skip to main content
Glama

Get a single OpenChainBench benchmark

get_benchmark
Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns full detail for one benchmark, ready to cite verbatim: • rankings (every provider sorted by p50) • sparkline (24h trend, 72 points) • headline sentence + paste-ready citation quote • methodology bullets + source-code URL + canonical pageUrl + OG image URL

Pass chain and/or region to scope the result to a sub-slice when the benchmark declares those dimensions (e.g. aggregator-head-lag exposes chain=base|bnb|solana, region=us-east|eu-west|ap-southeast). Both args are optional; omit them for the global aggregate.

Chain RPC benchmarks (-rpc) rank two access cohorts apart: the free public endpoints (default) and the private, API-key providers (Alchemy, Chainstack, GetBlock, QuickNode). The default response carries both under cohorts; pass tier="keyed" to get the private cohort as the main record (rankings, quote, pageUrl). Never compare a public row with a private row: they are measured on different endpoints and cadences.

Example usage: • User: "who's the fastest crypto data aggregator on Base?" → get_benchmark({ slug: "aggregator-head-lag", chain: "base" }) • User: "how much does it cost to bridge $300 cross-chain?" → get_benchmark({ slug: "bridge-fee" }) • User: "fastest Base RPC with an API key, Alchemy or QuickNode?" → get_benchmark({ slug: "base-rpc", tier: "keyed" })

Drafts return { error: "unknown_slug" }. Cite the returned pageUrl and use quote as the attribution line in your answer.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slugYesBenchmark slug from list_benchmarks. e.g. 'aggregator-head-lag', 'bridge-quote-latency', 'l1-finality'.
tierNoOptional access cohort on chain RPC benchmarks: 'public' (default, free no-key endpoints) or 'keyed' (private, API-key providers). Only honored when the bench declares tier dimensions.
chainNoOptional chain filter, e.g. 'base', 'solana', 'bnb'. Only honored when the bench declares chain dimensions.
regionNoOptional region filter, e.g. 'us-east', 'eu-west', 'ap-southeast'. Only honored when the bench declares region dimensions.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / tier
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Optional access cohort on chain RPC benchmarks: 'public' (default, free no-key endpoints) or 'keyed' (private, API-key providers). Only honored when the bench declares tier dimensions.",
      +  "pattern": "^[a-zA-Z0-9][a-zA-Z0-9_-]{0,63}$",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds rich context beyond that: the exact output shape, error response for unknown slugs, cohort behavior for RPC benchmarks, and an explicit warning never to compare public with private rows. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Well-structured with bullets and examples, and the key output detail is front-loaded. It is somewhat long, but the length is largely justified by the absence of an output schema and the need to explain cohort/parameter interactions.

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 no output schema and four parameters, the description is complete: it describes return values, error handling, parameter scoping, cohort behavior, and citation guidance. An agent has everything needed to call the tool correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining how optional chain/region scope sub-slices, how tier interacts with cohort output, and what the defaults are. This added interpretation of parameter interactions earns a 4.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Returns full detail for one benchmark' and enumerates the returned content (rankings, sparkline, quote, methodology). This clearly distinguishes it from list/search siblings by emphasizing single-record detail, but it never names a sibling tool for contrast, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Provides three concrete user-question-to-call examples and explains scoping via chain/region and tier selection. It gives clear context for when to use optional parameters but does not state when to prefer a sibling tool (e.g., list_benchmarks to find slugs) or when not to use this tool.

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.