Skip to main content
Glama

Mining statistics

mining_stats
Read-onlyIdempotent

Mining figures derived from the headers of the last "blocks" blocks (default 144, about a day; at most 2016), with how each is worked out:

  • seconds_since_last_block: now − the head block's timestamp. Blocks arrive as a Poisson process, so the time already waited says nothing about the wait to come.

  • block_time: statistics of the intervals between consecutive timestamps in the window (mean, median, p90, min, max, in seconds) against the 600 second target. Miners set timestamps within protocol limits, so single intervals can be zero or negative; the mean over the window is reliable.

  • hashrate_estimate: the sum of the window's block difficulties ÷ the seconds they took (last timestamp − the timestamp of the block before the window). A block takes "difficulty" hashes on average, so this is hashes per second. It swings with luck: over 144 blocks expect roughly ±8% (one standard deviation is 1/√blocks).

  • difficulty: the head block's, the window's mean, the change across the window in percent, and pool units (÷ 2^32, as mining pools display it). Difficulty adjusts every block by ASERT, aiming at 600 second blocks.

  • expected_block_seconds: head difficulty ÷ hashrate_estimate, the mean wait for the next block at the current hashrate; p_block_within_10_minutes = 1 − e^(−600 ÷ that).

  • miners: blocks found per coinbase address in the window with their share, named when the status page knows the pool (names are untrusted).

  • status_page: the status page's own figures for comparison: its 7-day block time, its hashrate (over the last 24 hours) and the exact next-block difficulty from its port of the ASERT rule.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
blocksNowindow size in blocks (default 144, at most 2016)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/open-world safety. The description adds substantial behavioral context: timestamp caveats ('single intervals can be zero or negative'), statistical swing on hashrate ('±8%, one standard deviation is 1/√blocks'), and trust caveat on pool names ('names are untrusted'). This is rich disclosure beyond annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a long multi-paragraph dump front-loaded with formulas rather than a lead sentence stating purpose. While the content is dense and useful, it is not appropriately sized or structured for quick scanning, and reads more like documentation than a tool description.

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 read-only analytics tool with no output schema, the description fully documents every returned field, its derivation, and its caveats, leaving nothing an agent needs to interpret results missing. Complete for the tool's complexity.

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 further by explaining the meaning of the window size (default 144 ≈ a day, max 2016) and its statistical implication (±8% at 144 blocks), adding value over the schema's terse 'window size in blocks'.

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 resource (mining statistics) and enumerates exactly what metrics are returned, each with a definition. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like chain_info or explorer_stats by the mining-specific scope. No sibling computes hashrate, block time, or miner distribution.

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?

The window semantics ('last blocks blocks, default 144, at most 2016') implicitly define when the tool applies, and the metric list implies its analytical use. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance relative to chain_info, network_health, or explorer_stats.

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.