Mining-pool distribution over a window: block share per pool, largest-pool share and the Nakamoto coefficient (minimum pools controlling >50% of blocks). window in 1h,6h,24h,48h,7d.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| window | No | 24h |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates the key outputs (block share, largest-pool share, Nakamoto coefficient) and accepted windows, but omits details like return format, whether data is live or historical, and how the largest-pool share is expressed. This is adequate but not exhaustive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that covers purpose, outputs, and parameters without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and every clause adds value, making it an exemplar of concise, informative tool documentation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description explains the output components and parameter options. However, it does not specify the exact structure of the per-pool share list or whether shares are percentages, leaving minor ambiguity about the return format. Overall, it is nearly complete for the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema only declares 'window' as a string with default '24h' and no description. The description compensates fully by listing the valid window values (1h,6h,24h,48h,7d), effectively providing an enum and clarifying the unit of the parameter, which is essential for correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states exactly what the tool does: it provides mining-pool distribution over a window, including block share per pool, largest-pool share, and the Nakamoto coefficient. It names a specific resource and metrics, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like pool_sources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pool_sources or other network tools. The description does not mention use cases, exclusions, or selection criteria, leaving the agent without context for choosing this tool over siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
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.
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.
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.