SiteCheck Crypto & Finance

Per-block extrinsic and event counts for the last N blocks

crypto_subtensor_block_metrics

Read-only

Per-block extrinsic and event counts for the last N blocks (1-10) on the Bittensor (Subtensor) Substrate blockchain using direct JSON-RPC. Related tools on this server, for a different need: crypto_subtensor_block_events when you need events of a single Bittensor Subtensor block by block; crypto_subtensor_evm_activity when you need Bittensor EVM activity monitor: recent blocks, transaction. 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_subtensor_block_metrics"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`blocks`	No	Number of recent finalized blocks to inspect (1-10, default 5)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 2, 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=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely non-obvious context: a per-call price of $0.002 USDC charged only on successful calls, via x402 on Base/Solana/Arc. It still doesn't mention rate limits or latency, but the billing behavior is the key operational detail an agent needs.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then tacks on sibling disambiguation and pricing in compact clauses; no filler and no repetition of the schema.

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 unnecessary, and the description covers source, scope, limits, cost, and alternatives. The only real gap is silence on the nearest sibling (crypto_subtensor_events) and on any freshness/latency characteristics.

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 'blocks' parameter is fully documented with min/max and default, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates the 1-10 range and adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, which matches the baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Per-block extrinsic and event counts for the last N blocks') with the chain (Bittensor/Subtensor) and data path (direct JSON-RPC), so the agent knows exactly what data it gets.

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 to two alternatives with their conditions ('crypto_subtensor_block_events when you need events of a single block', 'crypto_subtensor_evm_activity when you need EVM activity'). It does not address the closely related crypto_subtensor_events sibling, so the routing map is useful but incomplete.

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?