get_block
Full detail for one block by its 64-character block hash: height, previous hash, size, difficulty, reward, coinbase, transaction list and merge-mining tags.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hash | Yes |
monerometrics
TDQS
A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses the return content and the 64-character hash constraint, giving clear expectations. It does not mention edge cases like invalid hash handling, but no critical behavior is hidden.
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?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the function and packs all essential facts without redundancy or extraneous detail.
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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, parameter constraint, and return content. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.
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?
With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by specifying that the hash must be 64 characters, which adds crucial validation context not present in the schema. It does not specify encoding or case-sensitivity, but the core requirement is established.
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 specifically states 'Full detail for one block by its 64-character block hash' and lists the exact fields returned, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_block. It clearly identifies the resource (block) and the selecting argument (hash).
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?
The description clearly implies use when you have a 64-character block hash and need full block details. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation3/5
Most tools are clearly grouped by prefix (network_, pool_, haveno_, reorg), but there is overlap: get_block vs search_block both return block details, price vs haveno_book both expose the current Haveno order book, and chain_fork_window, recent_orphans, and reorgs all touch chain-fork/orphan phenomena. The descriptions help separate them, but an agent could easily pick the wrong one.
Naming Consistency4/5
The dominant convention is a domain_noun pattern (network_hashrate, pool_distribution, haveno_premium, chain_provenance), which is predictable and readable. Minor deviations like get_block, search_block, price, and reorgs break the pattern slightly, but not enough to cause confusion.
Tool Count4/5
18 tools is on the heavier side but reasonable for a metrics/analytics server covering network health, mining pools, reorgs, blocks, and Haveno market data. A few endpoints could potentially be consolidated, but each tool generally earns its place.
Completeness4/5
The surface covers current network state, historical time series, block lookup, orphan/reorg analysis, pool attribution, and Haveno market data, which is solid for a Monero metrics server. Minor gaps like transaction-level lookup or a direct chain-range endpoint are absent, but agents can work around them using the provided block and fork-window tools.