SiteCheck Crypto & Finance

Solana validator snapshot from the public RPC: active

crypto_solana_validator_cluster

Read-only

Solana validator snapshot from the public RPC: active and delinquent validator counts, total active stake in SOL, stake-weighted commission, cluster skip rate over the latest epoch block production, and the top validators by stake with their commission and skip rate. Related tools on this server, for a different need: crypto_solana_token_extensions when you need Solana SPL mint audit from the chain: program, authorities; crypto_jupiter_solana_routing when you need Jupiter aggregator quote on Solana for an exact-input swap. 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_solana_validator_cluster"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`top`	No	How many top validators by stake to list, 1 to 25 (default 5)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`source`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`topValidators`	No
`activeValidators`	No
`clusterSkipRatePct`	No
`totalActiveStakeSol`	No
`blockProductionRange`	No
`delinquentValidators`	No
`stakeWeightedCommissionPct`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered, and the description adds materially beyond them: the cost ($0.002 USDC per successful call via x402 on Base, Solana or Arc) and the fact that failed calls are not charged — critical for an agent deciding whether to spend. The data source (public RPC) and latest-epoch scope are disclosed too, though rate limits and freshness latency remain unstated.

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-loads what the snapshot returns, then sibling routing, then price — a sensible order with no filler sentences. The opening payload list is dense and comma-heavy, but every clause names a distinct returned field rather than restating the title.

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, return values need not be explained, yet the description still names the key metrics, plus cost, payment rail, source, and sibling alternatives. For a zero-required-param read tool, an agent has everything needed to select and invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and the single optional parameter already documents its range and default (1 to 25, default 5). The description only echoes 'top validators by stake', which links the parameter to the output but adds no format or truncation behavior beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Names the exact resource (Solana validator cluster) and source (public RPC), then enumerates precisely what the snapshot contains: active and delinquent validator counts, total active stake in SOL, stake-weighted commission, cluster skip rate for the latest epoch, and top validators by stake with commission and skip rate. That enumeration makes it distinguishable from neighbors like crypto_berachain_pol_validators or crypto_tao_top_validators even though those aren't named.

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?

Explicitly routes away two adjacent needs with conditions attached ('when you need Solana SPL mint audit...', 'when you need Jupiter aggregator quote... for an exact-input swap'), which is real when-to-use guidance. It does not state a when-not condition for this tool itself or clarify the epoch/refresh cadence an agent might care about before choosing it.

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?