RAVN

Prepare a signable Bitcoin transaction for a RAVN DEPOSIT

ravn_btc_prepare_send

Read-only

Turns a DEPOSIT-type ravn_execute result (depositAddress + depositAmount) into a ready-to-sign PSBT, so you don't have to write your own UTXO selection and fee-estimation code. Fetches your UTXOs and the current network fee rate from mempool.space (public, no auth). RAVN never sees or touches a private key — sign the returned PSBT with your own wallet and broadcast it yourself. Only one signer is ever needed (unlike PSBT flows that require coordinating signatures across multiple UTXO-holding wallets), because every RAVN BTC-source venue resolves to a plain single-recipient payment.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`network`	No	Defaults to mainnet
`toAddress`	Yes	depositAddress from ravn_execute
`amountSats`	Yes	depositAmount from ravn_execute, in satoshis
`fromAddress`	Yes	Your Bitcoin address holding the UTXOs to spend — native SegWit (bc1q…) or Taproot (bc1p…) only
`feeRateSatsPerVb`	No	Omit to use mempool.space's current halfHourFee estimate

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 3, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / network / description
```
Added value: +"Defaults to mainnet"
```

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "additionalProperties": false,
+      "properties": {
+        "error": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "error"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    {
+      "additionalProperties": false,
+      "properties": {
+        "changeSats": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "estimatedFeeSats": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "feeRateSatsPerVb": {
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        "inputCount": {
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        "psbtBase64": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "totalInputSats": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "psbtBase64",
+        "inputCount",
+        "totalInputSats",
+        "feeRateSatsPerVb",
+        "estimatedFeeSats",
+        "changeSats"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    }
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description reveals that the tool fetches UTXOs and the current network fee rate from mempool.space (public, no auth), which is an external behavioral dependency the agent should know. It also discloses that RAVN never sees or touches a private key and that the resulting PSBT needs only one signer, adding meaningful safety and workflow context without contradicting readOnlyHint/openWorldHint.

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?

Three sentences front-load the core transform in the first sentence and then add relevant behavioral context (mempool.space dependency, private-key handling, single-signer nature). There is no filler or tautology, and each sentence contributes useful information for an agent deciding whether to call the tool.

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?

Given that an output schema exists and all parameters are documented, the description covers the workflow, the external service used, the privacy boundary, and the single-signer property. The main purpose and relationship to ravn_execute are explicit, and the sibling tools are clearly distinct. Minor details like error handling or default network behavior are left to the schema, which is acceptable.

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?

All five parameters are fully described in the input schema, so the description does not need to repeat syntax details. The description does helpfully map toAddress and amountSats to the depositAddress and depositAmount fields from ravn_execute, easing correct invocation. This adds value above the schema, but the schema already carries the core parameter semantics.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description opens with a specific verb phrase: 'Turns a DEPOSIT-type ravn_execute result ... into a ready-to-sign PSBT,' clearly identifying the resource, the operation, and the output. It names the upstream tool (ravn_execute) and clarifies that this is a preparation step, not the actual broadcast, which distinguishes it from the sibling tools.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description clearly states when this tool applies: after a DEPOSIT-type ravn_execute result, and why it is useful, because the agent does not need to write its own UTXO selection or fee-estimation code. It also contrasts single-signer PSBT flows with multi-signer coordination, implicitly defining the appropriate context. It does not explicitly enumerate when-not-to-use cases against all siblings, but the sibling names and workflow context make the distinction easy.

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

All RAVN 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.