SiteCheck Crypto & Finance

Kaspa network hashrate current state, all-time peak

crypto_kaspa_hashrate

Read-only

Kaspa network hashrate current state, all-time peak with timestamp, consensus difficulty, and 24h trend. Units explicitly reported in TH/s, PH/s, EH/s, and H/s. Related tools on this server, for a different need: crypto_kaspa_dag_state when you need Kaspa BlockDAG snapshot: network name, block count, header; crypto_kaspa_mempool when you need Live Kaspa mempool state: unconfirmed transaction count. Price: $0.005 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_kaspa_hashrate"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, it discloses real behavioral facts: cost is $0.005 USDC per successful call via x402 on Base, Solana or Arc, and failed calls are not charged. It also notes units are normalized across TH/s, PH/s, EH/s and H/s, which matters for interpreting the result. It stops short of stating data freshness or latency, which is the only material gap.

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 returned metrics, then sibling routing, then cost and units — a sensible order with no filler. The pricing sentence is dense boilerplate but carries information an agent needs before invoking a paid endpoint.

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 and no input parameters, the description only needs to establish scope, cost and alternatives, and it does all three. An agent has everything required to decide whether to call it and what it will be charged.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. Nothing in the description conflicts with the empty schema.

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 names the specific resource (Kaspa network hashrate) and enumerates exactly what the payload covers: current state, all-time peak with timestamp, consensus difficulty, and 24h trend. It also explicitly separates itself from crypto_kaspa_dag_state and crypto_kaspa_mempool, so an agent can pick it apart from its closest siblings without opening a 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 gives concrete routing rules: use crypto_kaspa_dag_state for a BlockDAG snapshot and crypto_kaspa_mempool for live mempool state, with the distinguishing need stated for each. This is explicit alternative-naming rather than implied usage.

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?