statsFetch chain-wide blockchain statistics (block count, transaction volume, hash rate, mempool size, circulation, etc.) for a given chain (bitcoin, ethereum, dogecoin, and 12 others).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'chain-wide' aggregation scope and the list of statistic types, but does not disclose additional behaviors like rate limits or caching. This is acceptable given annotation coverage, but not exceptional.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose, parameter semantics, and supported chains without wasted words.
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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and an existing output schema, this description covers purpose, parameter meaning, and usage context. No significant gaps are apparent; the output schema handles return value details.
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 schema provides only the type 'string' for chain with no description or enum. The description adds meaning by stating the parameter represents a blockchain (bitcoin, ethereum, dogecoin, and 12 others), giving concrete examples and clarifying the parameter's role in the tool. This compensates for the 0% schema coverage, though it doesn't enumerate all valid values.
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 uses the specific verb 'Fetch' and identifies the resource as 'chain-wide blockchain statistics' with concrete examples (block count, transaction volume, hash rate, mempool size, circulation), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like block, transaction, or address that target specific entities.
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?
The description clearly implies usage when chain-wide aggregate statistics are needed, and the chain parameter context is explicit. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, so it falls short of full explicit guidance.
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.
The major clusters are distinct (blockchain explorer, memory, subscriptions), but several tools have unclear boundaries: ask_pipeworx_beta is currently identical to ask_pipeworx, the three ask_pipeworx variants and deep_research all route questions, and the five Polymarket tools overlap heavily on edge detection. An agent would struggle to pick the right query tool or prediction-market tool without reading very long descriptions.
Naming is a mix of single-word nouns (address, block, node, transaction, stats), verb-noun snake_case (validate_claim, generate_llms_txt), and noun-phrase snake_case (entity_profile, bet_research), with no consistent style or verb convention. There is no predictable pattern an agent can generalize from.
36 tools is well above the comfortable range, and most are meta-tools for Pipeworx, Polymarket, memory, and subscriptions rather than Blockchair blockchain functionality. A large share of the count is redundant query and edge-analysis variants, so the size adds confusion rather than capability.
As a read-only research and monitoring gateway, the surface is fairly complete: universal routing, grounded answers, entity resolution, profiles, comparisons, claim validation, memory, and subscriptions all have lifecycle coverage. Relative to the Blockchair name, the blockchain side is thin but covers address, block, transaction, node, and stats, with only minor gaps like mempool or raw script details that agents can work around.