Mempool MCP Server
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v1.0.0
- Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes targeting specific resources like addresses, blocks, transactions, or mempool data, with clear naming to differentiate them. However, some tools like get-address-txs, get-address-txs-chain, and get-address-txs-mempool have overlapping scopes that could cause confusion in selection, though descriptions help clarify the differences.
Naming Consistency5/5All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with hyphens (e.g., get-address-info, get-block-txids), using 'get' as the primary verb throughout. This uniformity makes the tool set predictable and easy to navigate, with no deviations in naming conventions.
Tool Count2/5With 31 tools, the count feels excessive for a mempool server, leading to potential bloat and complexity. While the domain is broad, many tools could be consolidated (e.g., multiple address transaction queries), making the set heavy and less scoped than ideal for efficient agent use.
Completeness5/5The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for Bitcoin blockchain and mempool operations, including CRUD-like actions for addresses, blocks, transactions, and fees. There are no obvious gaps; it supports full lifecycle queries from raw data to status checks, ensuring agents can handle typical workflows without dead ends.
Average 2.9/5 across 31 of 31 tools scored. Lowest: 1.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add
glama.jsonto the root of your repository:{ "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json", "maintainers": [ "your-github-username" ] }Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.
How to sync the server with GitHub?
Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.
To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.
How is the quality score calculated?
The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).
Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.
Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).
Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.
Tool Scores
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Returns stats info' only indicates a read operation but fails to describe what the stats include, format, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or any side effects. This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise ('Returns stats info'), which could be efficient if it were informative. However, it's under-specified rather than appropriately concise, as it lacks necessary details. It's front-loaded but fails to provide value in its brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by sibling tools (e.g., various blockchain data tools), no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, this is highly incomplete. The description doesn't clarify what 'stats info' entails, making it insufficient for effective tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is acceptable here as there are none to explain. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Returns stats info' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'get-stats-info' without adding meaningful specificity. It doesn't specify what kind of stats (blockchain statistics, network statistics, etc.) or what resource these stats pertain to, making it vague and minimally informative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its many siblings (e.g., get-mempool-info, get-difficulty-adjustment, get-mining-pools). There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent with no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Returns status' but doesn't specify what the return includes (e.g., confirmation count, validity, timestamp), whether it's a read-only operation, or any error conditions. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action, though it could be more informative. The brevity is appropriate but borders on under-specification.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a vague purpose, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'status' means, what the return values are, or how it differs from sibling tools. This leaves the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'hash' parameter documented as 'The block hash to get status for'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as hash format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Returns status for a block' clearly states the verb ('Returns') and resource ('block'), but it's vague about what 'status' entails compared to sibling tools like 'get-block' or 'get-block-header'. It doesn't differentiate itself from similar tools, such as whether 'status' refers to confirmation status, validation status, or other metadata.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-block' or 'get-block-header'. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal insight. It implies a read-only operation ('Returns'), but lacks details on rate limits, error conditions, or the format of returned data. This is inadequate for a tool with zero parameter complexity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single, straightforward sentence. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it efficient for an agent to parse, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'mempool info' includes, how it differs from sibling mempool tools, or behavioral traits like response format, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter semantics, but this is acceptable given the lack of parameters, warranting a baseline score above minimum.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Returns mempool info' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'get-mempool-info' without adding meaningful specificity. It lacks a clear verb-resource combination or details about what 'mempool info' entails, though it correctly identifies the resource as 'mempool'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While sibling tools like 'get-mempool-recent' and 'get-mempool-txids' exist for related mempool queries, the description offers no context, prerequisites, or distinctions to help an agent choose appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns transactions but does not specify whether this includes historical, pending, or filtered data, nor does it mention any constraints like rate limits, permissions, or response format. This lack of detail makes it inadequate for a tool with no annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for its purpose, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, exemplifying optimal conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of transaction data and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what type of transactions are returned (e.g., confirmed, unconfirmed), the response structure, or any limitations. For a tool with no structured support, more contextual detail is needed to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'address' parameter fully documented. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, as it only repeats the parameter's purpose without providing additional context like address format or validation rules. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without extra param info in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Returns transactions for an address' clearly states the verb ('returns') and resource ('transactions for an address'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity to distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get-address-txs-chain' or 'get-address-txs-mempool', leaving the scope vague. This places it at a basic level of clarity without sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools related to address transactions (e.g., 'get-address-txs-chain', 'get-address-txs-mempool'), there is no indication of context, exclusions, or prerequisites. This absence of usage instructions leaves the agent without direction for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns transactions but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's a read-only operation, what format the transactions are in (e.g., JSON, raw), if there are rate limits, or any error conditions. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and gets straight to the point, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of blockchain tools and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't specify what 'transactions' includes (e.g., full details, IDs, or something else), which is critical for an AI agent to understand the return value. With no annotations and rich sibling tools, more context is needed to be fully helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'hash' parameter well-documented as 'The block hash to get txs for'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as explaining hash format or constraints, but since the schema is comprehensive, 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.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Returns transactions for a block' clearly states the action (returns) and resource (transactions for a block), but it's vague about what 'transactions' means (e.g., full details, IDs only, or something else). It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'get-block-txids' or 'get-block-txid-by-index', which suggests similar functionality but with different outputs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get-block-txids' (returns transaction IDs) and 'get-block-txid-by-index' (returns a specific transaction ID), the description doesn't clarify if this tool returns full transaction data, making it unclear which tool to choose for different needs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns details but doesn't specify what those details include (e.g., balance, transactions, metadata), whether it's read-only, has rate limits, or requires authentication. This lack of context makes it inadequate for a tool with no annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, earning full marks for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of address-related data and the lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' are returned, leaving the agent uncertain about the tool's behavior and output, which is insufficient for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description doesn't add any meaning beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'address'. Since the schema already fully describes the parameter, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('details about an address'), making it understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-address-txs' or 'get-address-utxo', which might provide transaction or UTXO details instead of general address info.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools related to addresses (e.g., 'get-address-txs', 'get-address-utxo'), it fails to specify what type of 'details' are returned or when this tool is preferred over others, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it 'returns' data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, or what 'chain transactions' entails (e.g., format, time range, or completeness). This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, clearly stating the tool's function without unnecessary elaboration, earning a high score for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple parameter schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'chain transactions' returns, how results are structured, or any limitations, making it insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'address'. It implies the parameter is used to fetch transactions, but doesn't specify address format or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema already documents the parameter adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('returns') and resource ('chain transactions for an address'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-address-txs' or 'get-address-txs-mempool', which likely return different types of transaction data, so it lacks specific sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get-address-txs' and 'get-address-txs-mempool', it's unclear what 'chain transactions' specifically refers to (e.g., confirmed vs. unconfirmed, blockchain-specific), leaving the agent without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns data but doesn't mention any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, or whether this is a read-only operation. This leaves significant gaps for a tool interacting with a blockchain mempool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for its purpose, earning full marks for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of blockchain tools and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the returned data looks like (e.g., transaction list format), potential errors, or how it differs from sibling tools, making it inadequate for full contextual understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'address' parameter clearly documented. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as address format or validation rules. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('returns') and resource ('mempool transactions for an address'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-address-txs' or 'get-address-txs-chain', which likely return different types of address transactions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools related to address transactions (e.g., 'get-address-txs', 'get-address-txs-chain'), the description lacks context about when mempool transactions are needed versus confirmed ones, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool returns without mentioning any behavioral traits such as rate limits, error conditions, or response format. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for its purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what UTXOs are, the return format, or any behavioral aspects like pagination or errors. For a tool with no structured support, this leaves significant gaps in understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'address' parameter fully documented. The description adds no additional semantic information beyond what the schema provides, such as address format or validation rules. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('UTXOs for an address'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-address-info' or 'get-address-txs', which might provide related but different information about addresses.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools such as 'get-address-info' and 'get-address-txs', there is no indication of how this tool differs or when it is the appropriate choice, leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns details but doesn't specify what those details include (e.g., block height, timestamp, transactions), whether it's a read-only operation, potential errors (e.g., invalid hash), or performance aspects like rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Returns details'), making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the resource and input source.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a read operation with one parameter), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' are returned, error conditions, or behavioral traits, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond basic invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'hash' fully documented in the input schema (type, length constraints, and description). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as hash format examples or context. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't need to given the schema's completeness.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Returns') and resource ('details about a block'), specifying it retrieves information from a hash. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get-block-header' or 'get-block-raw' by focusing on general details rather than specific aspects. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get-block-txs' or 'get-block-status', making it slightly less specific than a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose this over siblings like 'get-block-header' (for header-only info) or 'get-block-txs' (for transaction details), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the name and description alone, lacking explicit context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the return format ('in hex') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as error handling (e.g., invalid hash), performance (e.g., latency), or side effects (e.g., rate limits). The description is minimal and lacks critical operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise ('Returns the block header in hex') with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded, directly stating the purpose. Every sentence (though only one) earns its place by conveying essential information efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values (beyond 'in hex'), error conditions, or usage context. For a tool in a blockchain context with many siblings, more guidance is needed to ensure correct agent invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'hash' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, as it doesn't explain parameter usage, constraints, or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Returns') and resource ('block header'), specifying the output format ('in hex'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get-block' or 'get-block-raw' by focusing on the header specifically. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'get-block-txids' is clearly different, but the distinction could be more explicit).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't specify if this is for lightweight header retrieval compared to 'get-block' (which might return full block data) or 'get-block-x' tools. The description lacks context about use cases or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns raw hex but doesn't specify what that entails (e.g., format details, error handling, performance characteristics, or if it's a read-only operation). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence ('Returns raw hex for a block'), which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'raw hex' means in practice (e.g., byte format, encoding), potential limitations, or how the result differs from other block tools. For a tool in a context with many siblings and no structured behavioral hints, more detail is needed to be fully helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'hash' clearly documented as 'The block hash to get raw hex for'. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond this, but since the schema coverage is high, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Returns') and resource ('raw hex for a block'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-block' or 'get-block-txids', which might offer similar block-related data but in different formats or scopes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'get-block' and 'get-block-txs' that might retrieve block information in different ways, there's no indication of when raw hex is preferred over structured data or other block-related queries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states a read operation ('returns') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, data freshness, pagination, or error handling. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (no parameters, but many sibling tools) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'latest blocks' means (e.g., number, format, or source), leaving gaps for the agent to understand the tool fully.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, which is appropriate here, but it could hint at implicit parameters (e.g., count or offset), so it's not a perfect 5.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Returns the latest blocks' clearly states the verb ('returns') and resource ('latest blocks'), providing a basic purpose. However, it's vague about scope (e.g., how many blocks, from what source) and doesn't distinguish it from siblings like 'get-block' or 'get-block-txs', which reduces specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'get-block', 'get-block-txs'), the description lacks context on use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a txid but doesn't describe error handling (e.g., invalid hash or index), rate limits, authentication needs, or output format. This is inadequate for a tool with two required parameters and no output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (two required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, and behavioral traits, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('hash' and 'index') well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the index refers to a transaction position in the block, which is already clear from the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Returns') and resource ('txid for a block'), specifying it's for a particular index. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get-block-txids' (which likely returns all txids) by focusing on a single transaction ID at a specific index, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-block-txids' or 'get-block-txs'. The description implies usage for retrieving a specific transaction ID by index, but lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns txids but doesn't mention any behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, safe to use, has rate limits, or what the output format looks like. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence that directly states the tool's function. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns a list of transaction IDs. It doesn't explain the return type, format, or any error conditions, which are crucial for an AI agent to use it correctly. The high schema coverage helps with inputs, but overall context is lacking.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'hash' parameter fully documented. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the hash format or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Returns txids for a block' clearly states the action (returns) and resource (txids for a block), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get-block-txs' or 'get-block-txid-by-index', which appear to serve similar block-related functions, so it doesn't achieve full differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools such as 'get-block-txs' and 'get-block-txid-by-index' that likely handle block transactions, there's no indication of what makes this tool unique or when it should be preferred, leaving usage ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a price but doesn't cover critical aspects like data source, accuracy, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded: a single sentence that directly states the tool's function without any unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the action, resource, and parameter format efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a data retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the return value looks like (e.g., price in USD, timestamp, source), potential errors, or behavioral constraints. This leaves the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'date' fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'specific date (YYYY-MM-DD)', which is already covered in the schema's pattern and description. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage, but doesn't provide additional semantic context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Returns the BTC price for a specific date (YYYY-MM-DD)'. It specifies the verb ('Returns'), resource ('BTC price'), and scope ('specific date'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-price', which might be for current prices, leaving room for improvement.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get-price' (which might fetch current prices) or specify contexts where historical data is needed. This lack of comparative information leaves the agent without clear usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states a read operation ('returns') but lacks details on behavioral traits like rate limits, data format, or whether it returns all or filtered txids. This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (simple read operation) but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain return values, data scope, or behavioral context, making it insufficient for effective tool use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter information is needed. The description does not add param semantics, but this is acceptable given the baseline, as it doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Returns mempool txids' clearly states the action (returns) and resource (mempool txids), establishing a basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'mempool txids' entails (e.g., all transaction IDs in the mempool) and does not differentiate from siblings like 'get-mempool-info' or 'get-mempool-recent', making it vague in context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings such as 'get-mempool-info' and 'get-mempool-recent', the description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns info but does not describe the return format, error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'info' includes, potential errors, or how results are structured. For a tool with no structured behavioral data, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'poolId' parameter fully documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Returns') and resource ('info for a specific mining pool'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-mining-pools' (which likely returns multiple pools), leaving room for ambiguity in distinguishing between them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'get-mining-pools' for listing multiple pools or other mining-related tools. It lacks explicit context or exclusions, offering minimal usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a read operation ('returns'), which implies it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what 'details' specifically includes. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of transaction data and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'details' includes, how the data is structured, or any limitations. For a tool with no structured output definition, more context is needed to understand the return value fully.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'txid' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Since the schema handles the documentation well, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('returns') and resource ('details about a transaction'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-tx-status', 'get-tx-raw', or 'get-tx-merkleblock-proof', which also return transaction-related information but with different scopes or formats.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools focused on transactions (e.g., 'get-tx-status', 'get-tx-raw'), there's no indication of what makes this tool distinct or when it should be preferred over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns data, implying a read-only operation, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or the format of the returned proof. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of blockchain operations and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a merkleblock proof is, its format, or how it might be used, leaving gaps in understanding for an AI agent. This is inadequate for a tool in a technical domain with many siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'txid' parameter well-documented in the schema. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining what a merkleblock proof entails or constraints on the txid. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Returns') and the resource ('merkleblock proof for a transaction'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from its many siblings (e.g., get-tx-info, get-tx-raw) beyond the unique 'merkleblock proof' aspect, which is implied but not contrasted.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like get-tx-info or get-tx-raw, there is no indication of the specific use case for a merkleblock proof, such as verification contexts or prerequisites, leaving the agent without contextual direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'outspend info' entails. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with zero waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a blockchain tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'outspend info' includes, potential errors, or behavioral traits, making it inadequate for full agent understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (txid and vout). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Returns') and the resource ('outspend info for a transaction output'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'get-tx-outspends', which likely returns multiple outspends, so it misses full sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it states what the tool does, it lacks crucial details such as what 'outspends info' includes (e.g., spending transaction IDs, confirmation status), whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, or error conditions. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of blockchain data queries and the lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, error handling, or how 'outspends info' is structured, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use the tool effectively in context with its siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'txid' clearly documented in the schema as 'The txid to get outspends for'. The description adds no additional semantic context about the parameter, such as format examples or validation rules beyond the schema's length constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('returns') and resource ('outspends info for all outputs of a transaction'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'get-tx-outspend' (singular vs. plural), which could cause confusion about when to use each tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the sibling tool 'get-tx-outspend' (singular), there's a clear need to explain when to retrieve outspends for all outputs versus a specific output, but this distinction is missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Returns raw hex') but doesn't mention potential constraints like rate limits, error conditions, or what 'raw hex' entails (e.g., format, encoding). This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of transaction data tools and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'raw hex' means in practice, potential use cases, or how it differs from other transaction-related tools, leaving the agent with insufficient context for optimal tool selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'txid' well-documented in the schema as 'The txid to get raw hex for'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating further.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Returns') and resource ('raw hex for a transaction'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get-tx-info' or 'get-block-raw', which might provide related transaction data but in different formats or contexts, leaving room for improvement in sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools available (e.g., 'get-tx-info', 'get-tx-status'), there's no indication of when raw hex is preferred over other transaction data, leaving the agent to guess based on context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states a read operation ('Returns'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what 'status' specifically includes (e.g., confirmed, pending, failed). This leaves significant gaps for agent understanding.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple parameter, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'status' returns (e.g., confirmation count, block height, mempool status), which is critical for a tool with siblings that might overlap. This leaves the agent guessing about the output format and use cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'txid' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining transaction ID formats or validation rules, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Returns') and resource ('status for a transaction'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-tx-info' or 'get-tx-raw', which likely provide different transaction-related information, so it doesn't achieve full sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get-tx-info' and 'get-tx-raw' available, there's no indication of what 'status' entails compared to other transaction data, leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns something, but doesn't clarify if it's a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format is. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states what the tool does without any fluff. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't specify what the return value is (e.g., a string, JSON object), which is critical for an AI agent to use it correctly. With no annotations to fill gaps, this leaves too much ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter details in the description. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing on the tool's purpose instead. A baseline of 4 is justified as it avoids unnecessary repetition.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Returns') and the resource ('mempool.space base url api'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on API metadata rather than blockchain data operations. However, it doesn't specify what exactly is returned (e.g., a string URL, configuration object), keeping it from a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's for retrieving the base URL, but there's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or how it relates to other tools (e.g., whether it's needed before calling other API endpoints).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states what the tool does ('returns recent mempool transactions') without disclosing behavioral traits such as rate limits, data freshness, or response format. This is a significant gap for a tool with no structured safety hints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, clearly stating the core functionality without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of blockchain/mempool data and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'recent' means, the format of returned transactions, or any limitations, leaving gaps for an agent to understand the tool fully.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter information is needed. The description doesn't add any parameter details, but this is acceptable given the lack of parameters, warranting a baseline score of 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'returns' and resource 'recent mempool transactions', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-mempool-info' or 'get-mempool-txids', which also deal with mempool data, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools related to mempool (e.g., 'get-mempool-info', 'get-mempool-txids'), the description lacks any context or exclusions to help an agent choose appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the basic function. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as data freshness, rate limits, error conditions, or output format, which are critical for a tool returning time-sensitive data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'mining blocks fees' entails, the data format returned, or any limitations, leaving gaps in understanding for effective tool use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter information is needed. The description adequately covers the tool's scope without redundant details, meeting the baseline for parameter-less tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Returns') and resource ('mining blocks fees for the last 24h'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-mining-pool' or 'get-mining-pools', which reduces specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context such as prerequisites, typical use cases, or comparisons to siblings like 'get-recommended-fees' or 'get-stats-info', leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Returns mining pools info' implies a read-only operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or response format. This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'mining pools info' includes (e.g., list of pools, statistics, or details), making it hard for an agent to understand the tool's full behavior and output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is acceptable here, but it could have mentioned if any implicit parameters (e.g., network context) are required, keeping it from a perfect score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Returns mining pools info' clearly states the verb ('Returns') and resource ('mining pools info'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'get-mining-pool' (singular vs. plural), which could cause confusion about when to use each tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-mining-pool' or other mining-related tools. It lacks context about whether this returns all pools, specific pools, or aggregated data, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe how it works—whether it returns current network fees, fee estimates for different confirmation times, historical averages, or other fee-related data. No information about rate limits, authentication needs, or response format is included.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core purpose immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's apparent simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'recommended fees' means in practice, what format the output takes, or how this differs from other fee-related tools in the sibling list. For a tool that likely returns structured fee data, more context would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps, and it appropriately doesn't mention parameters since none exist. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get recommended fees') and the resource ('for Bitcoin'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-mining-blocks-fees-24h' or explain what makes these fees 'recommended' versus other fee-related tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'get-mining-blocks-fees-24h' that might provide similar fee information, there's no indication of when this tool is preferred or what context it serves.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns information, implying a read-only operation, but lacks details on rate limits, error conditions, data freshness, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient to fully inform the agent about its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core functionality, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool returns but lacks details on the structure of the difficulty adjustment info (e.g., current vs. next values, units, timestamps), which could be important for an agent to interpret the results correctly. This leaves some gaps in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, earning a high baseline score as it avoids redundancy. No additional value is required here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('Bitcoin difficulty adjustment info'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-stats-info' or 'get-mining-blocks-fees-24h' that might also provide related Bitcoin network data, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for usage, or compare it to sibling tools that might offer overlapping or complementary functionality, leaving the agent with no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns current prices but lacks details on rate limits, data sources, update frequency, error handling, or response format. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality ('Returns the current BTC price') with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral details like return format or limitations, which would be helpful for an agent to use it correctly without structured output guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate here, earning a baseline score of 4 as it doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('current BTC price in various fiat currencies'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on price data rather than blockchain transactions, addresses, or blocks, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative 'get-historical-price' for time-based differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention 'get-historical-price' for historical data or other siblings for different data types, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage context implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
GitHub Badge
Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:
- Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
- Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
- Evaluate tool definition quality.
Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.
Card Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
MCP directory API
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/alexandresanlim/mempool-mcp-server'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server