SiteCheck Crypto & Finance

Detailed Kaspa block by 64-character hex hash: timestamp

crypto_kaspa_block

Read-only

Detailed Kaspa block by 64-character hex hash: timestamp, blue score, DAA score, parents, children, merge set blues/reds, transaction count, difficulty, and selected chain status (isChainBlock). Returns 404 if block is not found. Related tools on this server, for a different need: crypto_kaspa_recent_blocks when you need the most recent Kaspa blocks: hash, block timestamp, blue; crypto_kaspa_chain_color when you need blue vs red block counts in the merge sets of recent Kaspa. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "hash": "<hash>"
    },
    "name": "crypto_kaspa_block"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`hash`	Yes	64-character lowercase hex hash of the block

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes well beyond by disclosing the 404-on-missing-block failure mode and the paid-call economics ($0.002 USDC per successful call via x402 on Base/Solana/Arc, failed calls not charged). Pricing and error behavior are exactly the kind of 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?

It is front-loaded with the purpose and returned fields before alternatives and pricing, and every clause carries information. The one weak spot is the run-on colon-separated field list and semicolon-chained sibling references, which read as dense rather than crisply structured.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not document return shapes, and it covers everything else an agent needs: exact identifier format, error case, cost and payment mechanism, and where to go for adjacent needs. Nothing material is missing for a single-parameter read tool.

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 parameter already carries a regex pattern and a 'lowercase' qualifier, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description restates the hash format but adds no meaning beyond it, which is the baseline-3 case; notably it omits the schema's 'lowercase' nuance.

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 description opens with a specific verb-plus-resource framing (retrieve a detailed Kaspa block) keyed on the exact identifier (64-character hex hash), then enumerates the returned fields (timestamp, blue score, DAA score, parents, merge set blues/reds, tx count, difficulty, isChainBlock). This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling list tools it names, so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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?

It explicitly routes the agent elsewhere with conditions attached: crypto_kaspa_recent_blocks 'when you need the most recent Kaspa blocks' and crypto_kaspa_chain_color 'when you need blue vs red block counts in the merge sets of recent Kaspa.' That is a genuine when-to-use-this-vs-alternative statement, not just a link list.

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?