hashrateNetwork hashrate + difficulty history.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| period | No | 1d | 3d | 1w | 1m | 3m | 6m | 1y | 2y | 3y | all (default 3m) | |
| network | No | Which 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 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hashrates | No | Historical hashrate data |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / network / defaultAdded value: +"mainnet"Input schema / properties / network / descriptionAdded value: +"Which 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."Input schema / properties / network / enumAdded value: +[
+ "mainnet",
+ "testnet",
+ "signet",
+ "liquid"
+]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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.