SiteCheck Crypto & Finance

Events of a single Bittensor Subtensor block by block

crypto_subtensor_block_events

Read-only

Events of a single Bittensor Subtensor block by block number: event count, block hash, parent hash, and raw SCALE-encoded System.Events bytes. Returns 404 for a block that does not exist yet. 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_subtensor_events when you need Recent Subtensor chain events, optionally filtered. 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": {
      "block": "<block>"
    },
    "name": "crypto_subtensor_block_events"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`block`	Yes	Block number to retrieve events for

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds real value beyond them: a 404 on non-existent/future blocks and a $0.002 USDC x402 charge per successful call with failed calls uncharged. It stops short of describing payload size or decoding burden of the raw SCALE bytes, which matters for a heavy return payload.

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?

Purpose and returned fields are front-loaded, followed by error behavior, alternatives, and pricing in that order. It is dense and semicolon-heavy but every clause carries information; only the repeated 'when you need' phrasing could be tightened.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers what is missing from structured fields: cost model, failure mode, and sibling routing. Nothing an agent needs to decide or invoke correctly is absent.

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 param is documented as 'Block number to retrieve events for', so the description cannot add much. Its only extra signal is the 404 behavior for blocks that do not exist yet, which is behavioral rather than semantic detail about the parameter.

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?

Description names a specific verb and resource ('Events of a single Bittensor Subtensor block by block number') and enumerates the returned fields (event count, block hash, parent hash, raw SCALE-encoded System.Events bytes). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the two nearest siblings, crypto_subtensor_block_metrics and crypto_subtensor_events.

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?

Gives an explicit routing rule for both alternatives: use block_metrics for aggregate per-block counts over the last N blocks, and events for recent chain-wide events with optional filtering. The 'for a different need' framing makes the when-not choice unambiguous.

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?