SiteCheck Agent Intel & Dev

Blockchair chain statistics for one blockchain: block

dev_blockchair_multichain_stats

Read-only

Blockchair chain statistics for one blockchain (bitcoin, ethereum, litecoin, dogecoin, bitcoin-cash, dash, zcash, groestlcoin): block and transaction counts, mempool size and fees, 24-hour hashrate and volume, and the market price in USD as Blockchair reports it. Related tools on this server, for a different need: dev_nba_stats when you need NBA player season statistics, sorted leaderboard: per; dev_wnba_stats when you need WNBA player season statistics, sorted leaderboard: per. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

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": "dev_blockchair_multichain_stats"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`chain`	No	One of bitcoin, ethereum, litecoin, dogecoin, bitcoin-cash, dash, zcash, groestlcoin (default bitcoin)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`chain`	No
`blocks`	No
`source`	No
`blocks24h`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`volume24h`	No
`difficulty`	No
`hashrate24h`	No
`transactions`	No
`marketPriceUsd`	No
`bestBlockHeight`	No
`transactions24h`	No
`mempoolTransactions`	No
`priceChange24hPercent`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new context by disclosing paid access: $0.002 USDC per successful call via x402 on Base, Solana or Arc, and that failed calls are not charged. That billing behavior is exactly the kind of operational detail annotations cannot convey. It stops short of mentioning rate limits, freshness/latency, or upstream source reliability.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The opening sentence is well front-loaded and dense with useful scope information, and the pricing sentence earns its place. However, the two sentences about NBA/WNBA leaderboard tools are irrelevant to this resource and dilute an otherwise tight definition. Removing them would make the description substantially stronger.

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 a single optional parameter, an output schema, and readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description is nearly complete: it covers data scope, supported chains, and payment model. The main gaps are missing freshness/data-latency expectations and the misleading sibling references; otherwise an agent could call this correctly from the description alone.

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 single `chain` parameter already documents the accepted values and the bitcoin default, so the description's chain list is redundant repetition rather than added meaning. No additional semantics (e.g. case sensitivity, unknown-chain behavior, fallback) are supplied. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter burden.

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?

The description names a concrete resource (Blockchair chain statistics for one blockchain) and enumerates the returned metrics: block/transaction counts, mempool size and fees, 24h hashrate/volume, and USD price. It also lists the supported chains explicitly, so an agent knows exactly what data comes back. It does not meaningfully distinguish itself from other crypto-oriented siblings, but the resource itself is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The only routing guidance points to dev_nba_stats and dev_wnba_stats, which are sports tools and irrelevant to a blockchain-statistics call — this does not help an agent choose between this tool and other on-chain/crypto tools in the catalog. There is no statement of when this tool is preferred over alternatives (e.g. per-address or per-block blockchain queries) and no exclusion criteria.

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

All SiteCheck Agent Intel & Dev tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?