SiteCheck Crypto & Finance

Bitcoin network snapshot from mempool.space: recommended

finance_mempool_bitcoin

Read-only

Bitcoin network snapshot from mempool.space: recommended fee rates (sat/vB) for fastest, half-hour, hour and economy confirmation, plus the current chain tip height. Live network data; no prices. Related tools on this server, for a different need: crypto_bitcoin_mempool_stats when you need Bitcoin mempool congestion from mempool.space: unconfirmed; crypto_bitcoin_hashrate_difficulty when you need Bitcoin network hashrate with the last 3 daily averages. 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": "finance_mempool_bitcoin"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`source`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`tipHeight`	No
`feeRatesSatPerVb`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered; the description adds value by stating the data is live network data and by disclosing the cost model ($0.002 USDC per successful call via x402, failed calls not charged), which the agent cannot infer from structured fields. It does not describe freshness/latency or staleness of the snapshot, which would matter for a live-data tool.

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 is front-loaded in the first sentence, alternatives follow, and pricing closes it out, so the ordering is sensible. The middle "Related tools on this server, for a different need:" phrasing is slightly inflated and the sibling names are verbose, but no sentence is genuinely wasted.

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 and zero parameters, the description only needs to explain what is returned and how it differs from neighbours, and it does both, plus cost and data-liveness. An agent has everything required to decide to call it and to interpret the charge.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no argument semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly mentions the four fee tiers and tip height as returned content rather than implying any input control.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific resource and payload: recommended fee rates (sat/vB) at four confirmation tiers plus the chain tip height, sourced from mempool.space. It also scopes what it is not ("no prices"), which prevents confusion with the many price-ticker siblings. It does not distinguish itself from other close Bitcoin siblings such as crypto_btc_fee_curve or crypto_btc_mempool_pressure, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Two explicit alternatives are named with the condition that selects them: crypto_bitcoin_mempool_stats for unconfirmed/mempool congestion and crypto_bitcoin_hashrate_difficulty for hashrate averages. That is real routing guidance rather than implied usage. It still lacks exclusions against the other fee-oriented siblings, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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?