SiteCheck Crypto & Finance

Bitcoin mempool congestion from mempool.space: unconfirmed

crypto_bitcoin_mempool_stats

Read-only

Bitcoin mempool congestion from mempool.space: unconfirmed transaction count and size, recommended fee rates in sat/vB, difficulty-adjustment progress and estimated retarget date, and blocks until the next halving (every 210,000 blocks). Current snapshot only; no history. Related tools on this server, for a different need: crypto_bitcoin_hashrate_difficulty when you need Bitcoin network hashrate with the last 3 daily averages; finance_mempool_bitcoin when you need Bitcoin network snapshot from mempool.space: recommended. 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_bitcoin_mempool_stats"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`source`	No
`mempool`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`tipHeight`	No
`difficulty`	No
`feeRatesSatPerVb`	No
`nextHalvingHeight`	No
`blocksUntilHalving`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description carries real weight here: it discloses that results are a live snapshot with no historical data, states the price ($0.002 USDC per successful call), the payment rails (x402 on Base, Solana or Arc), and that failed calls are not charged — information an agent cannot infer from annotations. The final clause routing to finance_mempool_bitcoin is somewhat garbled, making it unclear which tool is being recommended, which keeps this from a 5.

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 payload description is front-loaded with the concrete metrics and the snapshot-only constraint before the routing and pricing clauses, which is the right order. It is a single dense block, and the finance_mempool_bitcoin clause ('...: recommended') reads as truncated or ambiguous phrasing that costs a little clarity.

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 an output schema present, return-value documentation is not required, yet the description still enumerates the metric families, and it covers cost, payment, snapshot freshness, and sibling alternatives. The only gap is the ambiguous recommendation sentence pointing at finance_mempool_bitcoin, which an agent may struggle to act on.

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; there is no parameter meaning to add or omit. The description correctly implies a parameterless, single-snapshot call.

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 (Bitcoin mempool congestion from mempool.space) and enumerates the exact metrics returned: unconfirmed tx count and size, recommended fee rates in sat/vB, difficulty-adjustment progress with retarget date, and blocks to halving. This is concrete enough to separate it from adjacent Bitcoin tools like crypto_btc_mempool_pressure or crypto_btc_fee_curve without opening schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly names two alternatives with the conditions that select them: crypto_bitcoin_hashrate_difficulty for hashrate with 3 daily averages, and finance_mempool_bitcoin for a mempool.space network snapshot. It also sets a clear boundary ('Current snapshot only; no history') that tells the agent when this tool is not suitable.

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?