SiteCheck Crypto & Finance

Berachain Proof-of-Liquidity telemetry from the public

crypto_berachain_pol_validators

Read-only

Berachain Proof-of-Liquidity telemetry from the public Berachain RPC: total BGT (Bera Governance Token) supply read from the BGT contract — BGT is minted only as PoL rewards, so its growth is the emitted amount — plus latest, safe and finalized blocks, finality lag, gas price (gwei), gas used % and average block time over the last 20 blocks. Per-gauge and per-validator splits are not read and not reported. Related tools on this server, for a different need: crypto_tao_subnet_validators when you need top validators of a specific Bittensor subnet by stake; crypto_tao_top_validators when you need Top Bittensor network validators in Taostats' rank order. 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": "crypto_berachain_pol_validators"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`bgt`	No
`head`	No
`safe`	No
`chain`	No
`source`	No
`chainId`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`finalized`	No
`headToSafe`	No
`gasPriceGwei`	No
`avgBlockTimeSec`	No
`headToFinalized`	No
`gasUsedPctOfLimit`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond readOnlyHint/openWorldHint it discloses the data source (public Berachain RPC), the meaning of the BGT metric (minted only as PoL rewards, so growth equals emitted amount), the granularity limits, and the billing model: $0.002 USDC per successful x402 call on Base/Solana/Arc with failed calls uncharged. Cost and payment rail disclosure is exactly the context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loads the resource and metric list before the exclusions and the sibling pointers, and every clause carries information. It is dense to the point of being a single long em-dash-chained sentence, which slightly hurts scanability.

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 zero-parameter read tool with an output schema, annotations, and a clear exclusions list, nothing needed to call it correctly is missing; data provenance, cost, and reporting granularity are all covered, and return shape is handled by the output schema.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The description correctly implies a parameterless snapshot and does not mislead about any inputs.

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 and chain (Berachain Proof-of-Liquidity telemetry) and enumerates the exact metrics returned: BGT supply, latest/safe/finalized blocks, finality lag, gas price, gas used %, and 20-block average block time. It also explicitly negates a scope the name implies ('per-gauge and per-validator splits are not read and not reported'), which prevents an agent from mis-selecting it on the word 'validators'.

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?

Gives explicit negative scope (no per-gauge/per-validator breakdown) and points to crypto_tao_subnet_validators and crypto_tao_top_validators for the validator-ranking need, but those are Bittensor tools rather than true substitutes, so the routing is only partially useful and there is no positive 'use this when' statement naming a Berachain alternative.

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

All SiteCheck Crypto & Finance 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?