coin-scout

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Chain status

chain_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve current Solana slot, epoch, block height, and recommended priority fee to anchor timestamps and verify RPC health before on-chain analysis.

Instructions

Current Solana slot, epoch, block height and recommended priority fee. Cheap orientation call — use it to anchor timestamps and confirm the RPC is healthy.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "chain_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.3.0Nov 6, 2026
- addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```
First observedv0.0.0-developmentOct 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the call is cheap (cost guidance) and its data is point-in-time 'current', useful as a freshness anchor. It omits how often values change or whether the priority fee is a recommendation versus an enforced value.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the returned data front-loaded and the operational advice second. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of telling the agent what it returns, and it does so by enumerating slot, epoch, block height and priority fee. Minor gaps remain — no units or format for the priority fee, and no note on staleness or refresh interval.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The description correctly implies a parameterless call by making no mention of inputs.

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

Purpose4/5

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

Names a concrete resource ('Current Solana slot, epoch, block height and recommended priority fee'), so an agent knows exactly what comes back without opening a schema. It stops short of differentiating itself from the sibling solana_rpc, which could plausibly also return chain-level data.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives an explicit usage context — 'cheap orientation call', 'anchor timestamps', 'confirm the RPC is healthy' — which tells the agent when this is the right first step. It never states when not to use it or points at solana_rpc as the alternative for deeper chain queries.

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