SiteCheck Crypto & Finance

Ethereum MEV-Boost delivered blocks from the Flashbots

crypto_mev_block_analytics

Read-only

Ethereum MEV-Boost delivered blocks from the Flashbots relay: proposer payment in ETH (block value), transaction count, gas used vs limit, and builder pubkeys with block counts. Covers the newest blocks only (1 to 50). Sandwich volume is not in this source and is not reported. Related tools on this server, for a different need: crypto_subtensor_block_metrics when you need Per-block extrinsic and event counts for the last N blocks; crypto_btc_block when you need Detailed Bitcoin block summary by height or hash. 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_mev_block_analytics"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	How many of the newest delivered blocks, 1 to 50 (default 10)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`blocks`	No
`source`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`blockCount`	No
`topBuilders`	No
`avgProposerPaymentEth`	No
`totalProposerPaymentEth`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses real operational behavior: the hard cap at 50 newest blocks, that data is x402-paid at $0.002 USDC per successful call across Base/Solana/Arc, and that failed calls are not charged. That billing/failure behavior is exactly the kind of information annotations cannot carry and an agent needs before calling.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by return fields, scope limits, exclusions, alternatives, and cost — each sentence/semicolon clause carries distinct decision-relevant content with no filler.

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 needn't describe return shape, and it correctly spends its words on scope, exclusion, alternative routing, and pricing instead. For a single-optional-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and annotations, nothing an agent needs to call 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 'limit' parameter already documents 'how many of the newest delivered blocks, 1 to 50 (default 10)'. The description's 'covers the newest blocks only (1 to 50)' merely restates the schema rather than adding syntax, format, or pagination nuance, so the baseline of 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 description names the exact protocol source (Flashbots relay MEV-Boost delivered blocks) and enumerates the returned fields — proposer payment/block value, tx count, gas used vs limit, builder pubkeys with counts. An agent can distinguish it from sibling block tools (crypto_btc_block, crypto_subtensor_block_metrics) 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?

It states a scope boundary ('newest blocks only, 1 to 50') and an explicit exclusion ('sandwich volume is not in this source'), then routes to two named alternatives with the condition that selects them. What's missing is any guidance on prerequisites or the primary scenario that should choose this tool over, say, other Ethereum block sources.

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?