SiteCheck Crypto & Finance

Coinbase text messages and mining pool attribution

crypto_btc_coinbase_messages

Read-only

Coinbase text messages (clean readable ASCII) and mining pool attribution for the last N Bitcoin blocks (1-144, default 15). Includes both sanitized ASCII and raw hexadecimal script. Related tools on this server, for a different need: crypto_btc_mining_pools when you need Bitcoin mining pool hashrate and block shares over 24h, 3d; crypto_btc_mining_economics when you need Bitcoin mining economics: Hashprice in USD and sats 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": "crypto_btc_coinbase_messages"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`blocks`	No	Number of recent blocks to inspect, 1 to 144 (default 15)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), and the description adds genuinely non-obvious operational context: the call costs $0.002 in USDC via x402 on Base/Solana/Arc, failed calls are free, and output includes both sanitized ASCII and raw hex script. It does not mention rate limits, latency, or result ordering, which keeps it short of 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?

Front-loaded with what the tool returns and its scope, followed by routing guidance and then pricing — a sensible order with little waste. Minor drag from the awkwardly truncated sibling descriptions ('sats per.') and the dense run-on pricing clause.

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, the description need not explain return shape, and annotations plus the price/payment disclosure cover the operational essentials for a paid read-only tool. A brief note on how the returned block range is ordered or paginated is the only meaningful omission.

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 'blocks' parameter is fully documented there, so the description repeating '1-144, default 15' adds no meaning beyond the structured field. Baseline 3 applies when the schema already carries the parameter semantics.

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 (Coinbase text messages plus mining pool attribution) scoped to the last N Bitcoin blocks, and explicitly names the two siblings it is not (crypto_btc_mining_pools, crypto_btc_mining_economics) with their differing subjects. An agent can distinguish it from the sibling set without opening any schema.

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 routing advice by naming two alternatives and the conditions that select them (24h/3d hashrate and block shares vs. economics/hashprice). When to use this tool itself is only implied by contrast, and there is no statement of prerequisites or when-not conditions beyond the sibling comparison.

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?