Crypto Bot Audit + Market Data (x402 paid)

Bitcoin difficulty retarget

market_btc_difficulty_adjustment

Read-onlyIdempotent

Where the next difficulty adjustment stands: percent progress, projected change, remaining blocks and time, the next retarget height and the average block time behind it. Costs $0.001 USDC per call. Byte-identical to GET /market/btc-difficulty-adjustment?.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ts`	No
`note`	No
`stale`	No
`caveat`	No
`reason`	No
`source`	No
`timeAvgSec`	No
`expectedBlocks`	No
`previousTimeMs`	No
`progressPercent`	No
`remainingBlocks`	No
`remainingTimeMs`	No
`difficultyChange`	No
`previousRetarget`	No
`adjustedTimeAvgSec`	No
`nextRetargetHeight`	No
`estimatedRetargetMs`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 25, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "adjustedTimeAvgSec": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "caveat": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "difficultyChange": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "estimatedRetargetMs": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "expectedBlocks": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "nextRetargetHeight": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "note": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "previousRetarget": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "previousTimeMs": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "progressPercent": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "reason": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "remainingBlocks": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "remainingTimeMs": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "source": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "stale": {
+      "type": [
+        "boolean",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "timeAvgSec": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "ts": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

AddedSep 24, 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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description correctly does not repeat those. It adds value by disclosing the per-call cost ($0.001 USDC) and noting it is byte-identical to a specific endpoint. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The first sentence lists the data fields, which is informative but slightly list-heavy; the second adds cost and endpoint equivalence. It is efficient without being terse, earning a 4.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema, the description need not detail return values. It covers what the tool returns (via field list), cost, and endpoint identity. For a zero-parameter read-only tool, this is complete enough, though it could optionally mention that it reflects current state or that the data updates over time.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema is empty (100% coverage). The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. It appropriately omits parameter details.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: reporting where the next Bitcoin difficulty adjustment stands, and enumerates the specific data fields it returns (percent progress, projected change, remaining blocks/time, retarget height, average block time). This is specific and distinct from sibling tools like market_btc_network_stats or market_btc_block_projections.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the tool's specificity—it is clearly the go-to for difficulty adjustment data. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions, such as 'for hashrate data use market_btc_mining_hashrate' or 'for block timing use market_btc_chain_tip'. The guidance is implicit, not explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Crypto Bot Audit + Market Data (x402 paid) 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?