Skip to main content
Glama

Mempool Space

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Hashrate

hashrate
Read-onlyIdempotent

Network hashrate + difficulty history.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
periodNo1d | 3d | 1w | 1m | 3m | 6m | 1y | 2y | 3y | all (default 3m)
networkNoWhich Bitcoin network. Defaults to mainnet — the real Bitcoin network, which is what "Bitcoin" means in an ordinary question. "bitcoin" and "btc" are accepted as aliases for mainnet.mainnet

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hashratesNoHistorical hashrate data

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the context that it returns historical data (hashrate and difficulty), which is useful but does not contradict or add significant new behavioral traits beyond what annotations imply.

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 extremely concise—one short sentence that is front-loaded and easy to parse. While it could include more context (e.g., return format), it wastes no words and is appropriately brief for a simple tool.

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's low complexity (2 optional parameters, output schema exists), the description is fairly complete. It clearly states the core data returned (hashrate + difficulty history). The output schema likely specifies return format, so the description covers essential context without needing elaboration.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (period and network) with descriptions and defaults. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning for parameters beyond what is in the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool returns 'Network hashrate + difficulty history', which is a specific verb-object pair. However, it does not distinguish from siblings like 'mining_pools' or 'block_height', which might also relate to mining or blockchain data.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or related tools. The agent must infer usage context from the tool name and schema.

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

All Mempool Space toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The set mixes two unrelated domains — Bitcoin mempool explorer tools and the much larger Pipeworx data-query platform — and within the Pipeworx half several tools route to the same 5,743-tool catalog (ask_pipeworx, deep_research, discover_tools, suggest_questions). ask_pipeworx_beta is currently an exact behavioral duplicate of ask_pipeworx, and the polymarket_* family has fuzzy boundaries (arbitrage vs edges vs fill_risk, with fill-checking living in both polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_fill_risk), so an agent must read long descriptions to avoid misselection.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use snake_case and there are recognizable sub-families (get_* Bitcoin lookups, ask_pipeworx_*, polymarket_*), but conventions are mixed across the whole set: bare-noun state tools (block_height, hashrate, mempool_stats, mining_pools) sit beside verb_noun actions (get_block, list_subscriptions), and prefix placement is inconsistent (ask_pipeworx vs pipeworx_trending/pipeworx_feedback). The naming is readable but not predictable enough to guess a tool's name from its function.

Tool Count2/5

41 tools is well past the 25+ threshold for a coherent server, and the count is inflated by bundling two unrelated products under a server named after only the smaller half (~10 Bitcoin tools vs ~31 Pipeworx tools). Many Pipeworx tools are convenience wrappers around one universal router, adding surface area without adding genuinely new capabilities.

Completeness3/5

Each half is internally workable: the Bitcoin side covers blocks, transactions, addresses, fees, hashrate, and pools, while the Pipeworx side provides broad query, research, subscription, and memory lifecycles. However, there are notable gaps relative to each domain (no block-list/fee-history endpoints on the explorer side; no direct per-source CRUD on the data side), and no single coherent domain is fully served because the server's stated identity matches only a fraction of its tools.

Resources