Hopi

Staking rewards calculator

hopi_staking_calculator

Read-onlyIdempotent

Turn a quoted staking rate into a final balance and rewards earned. For an APR rate, choose daily or monthly compounding; for an APY rate, compounding is already included. Returns the final balance, rewards earned and the effective APY. Figures are treated as GBP. Source: https://hopi.co.uk/staking-calculator/

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`rate`	Yes	Quoted rate as a percentage (0 to 1000)
`years`	Yes	Term in years (above 0, up to 100)
`rateType`	No	Whether the rate is APR (needs compounding) or APY (default apr)	apr
`principal`	Yes	Amount staked
`compounding`	No	Compounding frequency for APR (default daily)	daily

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	No
`rewards`	No
`summary`	Yes
`rateType`	No
`source_url`	Yes	The tool's page on hopi.co.uk (cite or open to check the figure)
`compounding`	No
`finalBalance`	No
`rewardsString`	No
`finalBalanceString`	No
`effectiveApyPercent`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 20, 2026
- addedOutput schema / properties / compounding / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```
- addedOutput schema / required
```
Added value: +[
+  "source_url",
+  "summary"
+]
```
First observedSep 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it states that results include final balance, rewards, and effective APY, and explicitly notes that figures are treated as GBP. No contradictions with annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: the main purpose appears in the first sentence, followed by parameter-specific guidance, return values, currency note, and a source link. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, 100% schema coverage, an output schema, and safety-focused annotations, the description covers what an agent needs: purpose, APR/APY behavior, return fields, currency assumptions, and source. There are no material gaps for invoking the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the semantic relationship between rateType and compounding: APY already includes compounding while APR does not. This goes beyond the schema's generic enum descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Turn a quoted staking rate into a final balance and rewards earned.' This clearly distinguishes it from generic calculators like compound_interest_calculator or crypto_profit_calculator by focusing on staking rewards and APR/APY handling.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives concrete input-selection guidance: 'For an APR rate, choose daily or monthly compounding; for an APY rate, compounding is already included.' It does not name alternative sibling tools, but the staking-specific context and parameter branching make the intended use clear.

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

All Hopi tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?