Bitcoin PSBT, Address & Descriptor Verifier + WorkSats L402 MCP

check_descriptor

Read-onlyIdempotent

Validate a Bitcoin output descriptor (wpkh, wsh, tr, pkh, sh, multi, sortedmulti, raw, addr, combo): verifies or computes the 8-character BIP380 checksum, checks derivation paths and xpubs, and derives sample addresses and scriptPubKeys. Never send xprv, WIF, or seed phrases.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`network`	No	Network for derived addresses (default: mainnet).
`descriptor`	Yes	Public output descriptor string (with or without `#checksum`).
`x402TxHash`	No	Optional confirmed Base mainnet USDC transfer transaction hash (`0x...`) to pay via x402.
`creditToken`	No	Optional WorkSats bearer credit token (`crd_...`) to pay 2 credits when free daily calls are used up.
`deriveCount`	No	Number of wildcard addresses to derive from index 0 (0..5, default: 3).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedOct 27, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / deriveCount / description

Previous value: -"Number of wildcard addresses to derive from index 0 (default: 3)."New value: +"Number of wildcard addresses to derive from index 0 (0..5, default: 3)."

changedInput schema / properties / deriveCount / maximum
```
Previous value: -20New value: +5
```
changedInput schema / properties / deriveCount / minimum
```
Previous value: -1New value: +0
```

addedInput schema / properties / x402TxHash

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional confirmed Base mainnet USDC transfer transaction hash (`0x...`) to pay via x402.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedOct 27, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value by disclosing that a missing checksum is computed rather than rejected, that sample addresses and scriptPubKeys are derived, and by imposing a secret-material prohibition that no annotation conveys. It does not mention the credit/x402 cost model or rate limits, which is the remaining gap.

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?

One dense sentence that front-loads the verb, resource and supported types, followed by a short safety imperative. Nothing is redundant and the security warning is placed last for emphasis without padding.

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 explaining returns, and it does so adequately: checksum verification/computation, derivation path and xpub checks, and derived sample addresses and scriptPubKeys. Payment and credit parameters are handled in the schema. Only the failure mode (what a rejection looks like) is left unstated.

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%, so all five parameters (including the enum on network and the 0..5 bound on deriveCount) are already documented in structured form. The description only indirectly gestures at network and deriveCount via 'derives sample addresses', adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description names a specific verb (validate) and resource (Bitcoin output descriptor), enumerates the supported descriptor types, and states exactly what the check entails (BIP380 checksum, derivation paths, xpubs, sample addresses/scriptPubKeys). This cleanly separates it from check_bitcoin_address and check_psbt, which operate on different artifacts.

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?

Usage context is clear: you bring a descriptor string and get validation plus optional derived samples. It also draws a hard input boundary with 'Never send xprv, WIF, or seed phrases.' It does not, however, explicitly say when to prefer this over check_bitcoin_address or check_psbt, so the agent must infer the routing.

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

All Bitcoin PSBT, Address & Descriptor Verifier + WorkSats L402 MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

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

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?