SiteCheck Crypto & Finance

Up to 144 consecutive Bitcoin blocks descending

crypto_btc_blocks_range

Read-only

Up to 144 consecutive Bitcoin blocks descending from fromHeight (or tip). Returns height, hash, time, size, weight, tx count, fees, subsidy, reward, median fee sat/vB, and pool name for each block. Related tools on this server, for a different need: crypto_btc_chain_tips when you need recent stale/orphaned Bitcoin blocks and sidechain forks; crypto_btc_mempool_pressure when you need Bitcoin mempool pressure state and projected next blocks. 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_btc_blocks_range"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`count`	No	Number of consecutive blocks to return, 1 to 144 (default 15)
`fromHeight`	No	Starting block height (descending downwards, optional default: latest tip)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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 useful non-schema context: the $0.002 per-successful-call x402 price, accepted chains (Base, Solana, Arc), and that failed calls are not charged. However, it says nothing about behavior at range edges, e.g. what happens if fromHeight is near genesis and fewer than 144 blocks exist.

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-loaded with the operation and scope, then return fields, then sibling routing, then pricing — a sensible order with no filler. Minor blemish: the repeated 'from fromHeight' phrasing and a long field enumeration that the output schema already covers.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the field list is somewhat redundant but harmless. Combined with annotations covering read-only access and the description covering cost and routing, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only edge-case behavior for short ranges is left unspecified.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both params (count 1-144 default 15, fromHeight default tip) are already fully documented. The description reinforces the descending direction and the tip default but adds no format or edge-case semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource with exact scope: 'Up to 144 consecutive Bitcoin blocks descending from fromHeight (or tip).' An agent immediately knows this is a descending, height-anchored range fetch rather than a single-block or mempool lookup.

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?

Explicitly names two alternatives with the condition that selects each: crypto_btc_chain_tips for stale/orphaned blocks and sidechain forks, crypto_btc_mempool_pressure for mempool pressure and projected blocks. The notable gap is that the nearest sibling, crypto_btc_block (single block), is not distinguished from this range tool.

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?