SiteCheck Crypto & Finance

Stake and emission concentration analysis for a Bittensor

crypto_tao_subnet_concentration

Read-only

Stake and emission concentration analysis for a Bittensor subnet: top-1 share, top-10 share, and the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI = sum(s_i^2) where s_i is percentage share 0-100, or normalized 0-1) across neurons. Requires TAOSTATS_API_KEY. Related tools on this server, for a different need: crypto_tao_subnet_validators when you need top validators of a specific Bittensor subnet by stake; crypto_tao_subnet when you need Detailed pool metrics for a single Bittensor subnet. 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_tao_subnet_concentration"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`netuid`	No	Subnet network UID (default 1)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations: a required TAOSTATS_API_KEY, a $0.005 USDC cost per successful call via x402 on Base/Solana/Arc, and that failed calls are not charged. Not disclosed: rate limits, latency, or behavior when the key is missing/invalid, which for a paid external-API tool would round this out.

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-loaded with the capability and the metric definitions, and the HHI formula parenthetical is compact and load-bearing. The 'Related tools on this server, for a different need:' phrasing is clunky and the pricing sentence is reusable boilerplate, but both still earn their place for a paid tool.

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-value explanation is unnecessary, and annotations already cover the read-only safety profile; the description correctly spends its budget on cost, auth, and sibling routing. The only gap for a paid external-data tool is the absence of failure/rate-limit behavior.

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?

There is a single parameter (netuid) with 100% schema description coverage including a default, so the schema already carries the semantics and the description adds nothing about it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting; no compensating detail (e.g. netuid 0 = root) is provided.

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+scope: stake and emission concentration on a Bittensor subnet, and enumerates exactly what is computed (top-1 share, top-10 share, HHI) including the formula. This is distinguishable from sibling tools like crypto_tao_subnet_validators and crypto_tao_subnet 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?

Explicitly routes the agent away from two alternatives by naming them and stating the condition that selects each ('when you need top validators... by stake', 'when you need detailed pool metrics'). It gives no explicit when-not to use this tool itself (e.g. single-neuron queries), and the routing sentences read as boilerplate, so it stops short of a full 5.

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?