SiteCheck Crypto & Finance

Bitcoin mining pool hashrate and block shares over 24h, 3d

crypto_btc_mining_pools

Read-only

Bitcoin mining pool hashrate and block shares over 24h, 3d, 1w, or 1m. Pool attribution is by mempool.space using coinbase tags and payout addresses. Returns block count, shares, and estimated EH/s. Related tools on this server, for a different need: crypto_btc_mining_economics when you need Bitcoin mining economics: Hashprice in USD and sats per; crypto_btc_block when you need Detailed Bitcoin block summary by height or hash. Price: $0.003 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_mining_pools"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`period`	No	Time window: 24h, 3d, 1w, 1m (default 1w)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, it discloses the underlying data source and attribution method (mempool.space via coinbase tags and payout addresses), which matters for trusting pool-level figures. It also states the price model ($0.003 USDC via x402 on Base/Solana/Arc, failed calls free), a key behavioral fact not in annotations; it stops short of describing aggregation caveats or latency.

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 purpose is front-loaded, followed by attribution, return fields, alternative tools, and pricing in a logical order. The middle sentences are dense with colons and clauses but nothing is clearly redundant.

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 one-parameter, read-only metric tool with an output schema present, the description covers source, scope, return fields, alternatives, and cost. Nothing an agent needs to select or invoke it correctly is missing.

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% and the single enum parameter already documents the allowed values and the 1w default. The description restates the period list but adds no format or semantic detail 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?

The opening sentence names the exact resource (Bitcoin mining pool hashrate and block shares) and the supported windows, which is specific enough to distinguish it from crypto_bitcoin_hashrate_difficulty or crypto_btc_block. It also explicitly names two siblings and what they cover instead.

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?

The description gives explicit routing: use crypto_btc_mining_economics for hashprice in USD/sats, and crypto_btc_block for block summaries by height or hash. The when-not condition is spelled out alongside the alternative names.

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?