reorg_stats
Aggregate reorg statistics over windows: counts, average and maximum depth, affected transactions.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
monerometrics
TDQS
B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not state that the tool is read-only or non-mutating, nor does it clarify how 'windows' are defined or selected given the absence of parameters. The description lists metrics but leaves window semantics and side-effect profile unclear.
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 sentence that front-loads the primary action and packs relevant metrics into a readable list. No unnecessary words; every segment adds meaningful detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameters, so the description is the only source of information. While it explains what metrics are computed, it fails to clarify the meaning of 'windows', the output format, or whether the operation is read-only. This leaves significant gaps for an agent deciding to invoke the tool.
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?
The schema has zero parameters and thus covers all parameter behavior vacuously (100% coverage). The description mentions 'over windows' but does not explain how windows are configured, so it adds no concrete parameter semantics. Baseline 3 applies.
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 function as aggregating reorg statistics and enumerates specific metrics (counts, average and maximum depth, affected transactions). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'reorgs' or 'recent_orphans' that likely list events rather than aggregate them.
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?
The phrase 'over windows' implies the tool is for windowed aggregation, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or provide exclusion criteria. Guidance is only implied, not explicit.
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.