BusCalc — Business & Trade Calculations

Seal a private record commitment

buscalc_seal_record

Idempotent

Explicitly submit a locally generated commitment for a receipt or other record. Only the commitment is submitted. Retain the original bytes and private nonce locally. Pending is not an external timestamp. https://buscalc.com/for-ai/#seal-a-receipt

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "commitment": "<commitment>"
    },
    "name": "buscalc_seal_record"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`commitment`	Yes	Lowercase SHA-256 commitment derived locally from exact receipt bytes and a private random nonce. Never send the receipt, nonce or unsalted file hash.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`batch`	No
`status`	Yes
`commitment`	Yes	Lowercase SHA-256 commitment derived locally from exact receipt bytes and a private random nonce. Never send the receipt, nonce or unsalted file hash.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 10, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "batch": {
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "commitment": {
+      "description": "Lowercase SHA-256 commitment derived locally from exact receipt bytes and a private random nonce. Never send the receipt, nonce or unsalted file hash.",
+      "pattern": "^[a-f0-9]{64}$",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "enum": [
+        "pending",
+        "anchored"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "commitment",
+    "status"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

AddedNov 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare write, idempotent and open-world behavior, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: only the commitment is transmitted, the receipt bytes and nonce must stay client-side, and a pending state is explicitly not an external timestamp. That last caveat prevents a costly misinterpretation of the result. Auth, rate-limit and pricing behavior are still unstated.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the privacy constraint and the pending-state caveat; the doc link is appended last. The terse 'Pending is not an external timestamp' is slightly elliptic in isolation, but every sentence carries information.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the privacy model and the pending-state semantics that neither schema nor annotations express, which is sufficient for a one-parameter tool. A brief note on what verification path follows sealing would make it fully complete.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single commitment parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the pattern and derivation. The description's 'Only the commitment is submitted' reinforces the privacy constraint but adds no format or derivation detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific verb and object: 'submit a locally generated commitment for a receipt or other record', which tells an agent precisely what leaves the client and what does not. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling buscalc_verify_record_proof, so the boundary between sealing and verifying is left implicit.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

'Explicitly submit' implies an intentional user-facing action rather than an automatic background step, and the retention instructions ('retain the original bytes and private nonce locally') frame the prerequisite work. However, there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and no pointer to buscalc_verify_record_proof for the follow-up verification step.

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

All BusCalc — Business & Trade Calculations tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?