SiteCheck Crypto & Finance

Measured Kaspa throughput from api.kaspa.org: blocks per

crypto_kaspa_throughput

Read-only

Measured Kaspa throughput from api.kaspa.org: blocks per second over the last ~600 blue scores (DAA score delta / time delta between two chain blocks), estimated transactions per second (average transactions per block in a recent-block sample x measured BPS), and DAG width (parallel blocks per blue score, average merge set size) from that sample. Both windows are returned. Related tools on this server, for a different need: crypto_kaspa_chain_density when you need ratio of selected-chain blocks to total DAG blocks created; crypto_kaspa_recent_blocks when you need the most recent Kaspa blocks: hash, block timestamp, blue. 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_throughput"
  }
}

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

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds material context beyond that: it is a paid x402 call at $0.005 USDC per successful call on Base/Solana/Arc, and failed calls are not charged — cost/auth information an agent cannot get from structured fields. It does not cover rate limits or data-freshness/caching behavior.

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 one dense paragraph, front-loaded with what is measured before moving to alternatives and pricing, and every clause carries information. Slight wordiness in the transition 'Related tools on this server, for a different need' and the parenthetical formula definitions make it heavier than strictly necessary, but nothing is filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is optional, yet the description still defines each metric precisely, which helps interpretation. Combined with the pricing disclosure and sibling routing, an agent has everything needed; only freshness/caching and error behavior are unaddressed.

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 the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter semantics to get wrong. The description instead spends its space defining the computed outputs (BPS, TPS formula, DAG width) which removes ambiguity about what the numbers mean.

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 a specific resource and measurement set: blocks per second over ~600 blue scores, estimated TPS (txs/block × measured BPS), and DAG width / average merge set size. It also states both sampling windows are returned, so an agent knows exactly what output to expect and can distinguish it from siblings like crypto_kaspa_chain_density.

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?

It explicitly routes the agent away from two siblings with conditions ('crypto_kaspa_chain_density when you need ratio of selected-chain blocks to total DAG blocks', 'crypto_kaspa_recent_blocks when you need the most recent Kaspa blocks'), which is real when-to-use guidance. It stops short of covering other closely adjacent tools such as crypto_kaspa_metrics_history or crypto_kaspa_dag_state, so the routing is not exhaustive.

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?