Skip to main content
Glama

Seneschal Data

by io.github.Rotwang9000

Penny Oracle: atomic single-fact endpoints (DeFi + privacy chains)

seneschal_q

Atomic single-fact endpoints designed for tight agent loops. Each answers ONE yes/no or one number — sub-50ms, flat $0.001/call at the REST surface. Two families: (1) DeFi facts sourced from our SQLite + shadow-blocks recorder (liquidatable, at-risk-count, recent-liquidations, top-builder, builder-share, builder-bid, block-value, cheapest-flashloan, data-freshness, address-risk, base-fee, proposer-payment); (2) privacy-chain facts sourced from Seneschal-operated full nodes — Monero (xmr/height, xmr/mempool, xmr/fee, xmr/fee-estimate, xmr/last-block) and Zcash (zec/height, zec/mempool, zec/last-block, zec/pools). Consult /v1/q for per-question input lists and live chain availability.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
paramsNoPer-question parameter object. DeFi questions take addr/protocol/window/builder/pct/etc. Privacy-chain questions currently take no params.
questionYesWhich atomic fact to ask. See description for the list. Privacy-chain questions use `xmr/<name>` or `zec/<name>`.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / question / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "liquidatable",
-  "at-risk-count",
-  "recent-liquidations",
-  "top-builder",
-  "builder-share",
-  "builder-bid",
-  "block-value",
-  "cheapest-flashloan",
-  "data-freshness",
-  "address-risk",
-  "base-fee",
-  "proposer-payment",
-  "xmr/height",
-  "xmr/mempool",
-  "xmr/fee",
-  "xmr/fee-estimate",
-  "xmr/last-block",
-  "zec/height",
-  "zec/mempool",
-  "zec/last-block"
-]New value: +[
+  "liquidatable",
+  "at-risk-count",
+  "recent-liquidations",
+  "top-builder",
+  "builder-share",
+  "builder-bid",
+  "block-value",
+  "cheapest-flashloan",
+  "data-freshness",
+  "address-risk",
+  "base-fee",
+  "proposer-payment",
+  "xmr/height",
+  "xmr/mempool",
+  "xmr/fee",
+  "xmr/fee-estimate",
+  "xmr/last-block",
+  "zec/height",
+  "zec/mempool",
+  "zec/last-block",
+  "zec/pools"
+]
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / question / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "liquidatable",
-  "at-risk-count",
-  "recent-liquidations",
-  "top-builder",
-  "builder-share",
-  "builder-bid",
-  "block-value",
-  "cheapest-flashloan",
-  "data-freshness",
-  "address-risk",
-  "base-fee",
-  "xmr/height",
-  "xmr/mempool",
-  "xmr/fee",
-  "xmr/fee-estimate",
-  "xmr/last-block",
-  "zec/height",
-  "zec/mempool",
-  "zec/last-block"
-]New value: +[
+  "liquidatable",
+  "at-risk-count",
+  "recent-liquidations",
+  "top-builder",
+  "builder-share",
+  "builder-bid",
+  "block-value",
+  "cheapest-flashloan",
+  "data-freshness",
+  "address-risk",
+  "base-fee",
+  "proposer-payment",
+  "xmr/height",
+  "xmr/mempool",
+  "xmr/fee",
+  "xmr/fee-estimate",
+  "xmr/last-block",
+  "zec/height",
+  "zec/mempool",
+  "zec/last-block"
+]
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / question / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "liquidatable",
-  "at-risk-count",
-  "recent-liquidations",
-  "top-builder",
-  "builder-share",
-  "builder-bid",
-  "block-value",
-  "cheapest-flashloan",
-  "data-freshness",
-  "address-risk",
-  "xmr/height",
-  "xmr/mempool",
-  "xmr/fee",
-  "xmr/fee-estimate",
-  "xmr/last-block",
-  "zec/height",
-  "zec/mempool",
-  "zec/last-block"
-]New value: +[
+  "liquidatable",
+  "at-risk-count",
+  "recent-liquidations",
+  "top-builder",
+  "builder-share",
+  "builder-bid",
+  "block-value",
+  "cheapest-flashloan",
+  "data-freshness",
+  "address-risk",
+  "base-fee",
+  "xmr/height",
+  "xmr/mempool",
+  "xmr/fee",
+  "xmr/fee-estimate",
+  "xmr/last-block",
+  "zec/height",
+  "zec/mempool",
+  "zec/last-block"
+]
  4. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / question / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "liquidatable",
-  "at-risk-count",
-  "recent-liquidations",
-  "top-builder",
-  "builder-share",
-  "builder-bid",
-  "block-value",
-  "cheapest-flashloan",
-  "data-freshness",
-  "xmr/height",
-  "xmr/mempool",
-  "xmr/fee",
-  "xmr/fee-estimate",
-  "xmr/last-block",
-  "zec/height",
-  "zec/mempool",
-  "zec/last-block"
-]New value: +[
+  "liquidatable",
+  "at-risk-count",
+  "recent-liquidations",
+  "top-builder",
+  "builder-share",
+  "builder-bid",
+  "block-value",
+  "cheapest-flashloan",
+  "data-freshness",
+  "address-risk",
+  "xmr/height",
+  "xmr/mempool",
+  "xmr/fee",
+  "xmr/fee-estimate",
+  "xmr/last-block",
+  "zec/height",
+  "zec/mempool",
+  "zec/last-block"
+]
  5. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / question / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "liquidatable",
-  "at-risk-count",
-  "recent-liquidations",
-  "top-builder",
-  "builder-share",
-  "builder-bid",
-  "cheapest-flashloan",
-  "data-freshness",
-  "xmr/height",
-  "xmr/mempool",
-  "xmr/fee",
-  "xmr/last-block",
-  "zec/height",
-  "zec/mempool",
-  "zec/last-block"
-]New value: +[
+  "liquidatable",
+  "at-risk-count",
+  "recent-liquidations",
+  "top-builder",
+  "builder-share",
+  "builder-bid",
+  "block-value",
+  "cheapest-flashloan",
+  "data-freshness",
+  "xmr/height",
+  "xmr/mempool",
+  "xmr/fee",
+  "xmr/fee-estimate",
+  "xmr/last-block",
+  "zec/height",
+  "zec/mempool",
+  "zec/last-block"
+]
  6. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses behavioral traits such as sub-50ms latency, flat pricing per call, data sources (SQLite + shadow-blocks recorder, Seneschal-operated full nodes), and the fact that each call returns exactly one fact. It also directs to /v1/q for live availability, though it does not mention side effects, rate limits, or error behavior.

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?

The description is front-loaded with a compact purpose statement, then efficiently lays out the two families and enumerates all 21 question names in a structured way. It is somewhat long, but every sentence contributes value, and the use of parentheses and semicolons keeps it scannable. The pointer to /v1/q avoids further bloat.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one enum param and an open params object) and no output schema, the description provides a solid mental model: returns one yes/no or number, has two families with listed questions, and defers to /v1/q for exact inputs and availability. It stops short of detailing per-question outputs or error conditions, but that is reasonable for a lightweight fact lookup tool.

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% with descriptions for both params, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful layers: it categorizes the `question` enum into DeFi vs privacy chains, notes that privacy-chain questions take no params, and explains the provenance of the facts. It also points to /v1/q for per-question input lists, which is helpful given the `params` object is loosely typed.

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 opens with 'Atomic single-fact endpoints designed for tight agent loops' and explicitly states each returns one yes/no or one number. It also enumerates the two families (DeFi and privacy-chain) with a complete list of question names, making the tool's purpose and scope unmistakable and clearly distinguishing it from broader sibling tools like seneschal_stats_overview.

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?

The description gives strong contextual guidance: 'designed for tight agent loops' and mentions sub-50ms latency and flat $0.001/call, indicating when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the 'atomic single-fact' framing implies that for richer or multi-fact data, one would use the more specialized sibling endpoints.

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

All Seneschal Data toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools are grouped by domain (board, private_watch, zecmon) with clear lifecycle separation, but seneschal_list_at_risk_borrowers and seneschal_list_borrowers overlap heavily, and the USDC vs crypto variants of private_watch_create/topup could be confused without careful reading.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a seneschal_<domain>_<action> pattern, but verb/noun order varies (get_borrower vs list_borrowers vs board_list) and outliers like seneschal_health and seneschal_q break the pattern.

Tool Count3/5

At 35 tools, the server is definitely heavy, but it covers multiple distinct domains (DeFi data, privacy-chain monitoring, notice boards, payments), so the count is at the high end of reasonable rather than absurdly bloated.

Completeness4/5

Core workflows are well covered: borrower discovery/analysis, liquidations, private watch lifecycle, Zcash scanning lifecycle, board operations, and checkout invoices. Minor gaps like board deletion or watch cancellation exist but are workaround-able.

Resources