k402

channel_config

Parameters for opening a kaspa-channel — a covenant-enforced payment channel that settles per-call vouchers on Kaspa L1 with NO custodian (the trustless alternative to a prepaid session). Returns the payee pubkey, min/max channel size, required expiry lead, and maxfee. Free. Opening a channel means funding the channel covenant on-chain (payer holds the key), then paying per call with signed vouchers — use the k402 Python client (pip install k402, k402.channel) to build the covenant and sign vouchers, since that flow needs your Kaspa key. Returns {error} if this gateway hasn't enabled the (experimental) channel rail.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It notes the tool is free and returns an error if the feature is disabled. However, it does not explicitly state whether it is read-only or has side effects, though context implies it is a safe query.

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?

The description is a single paragraph with clear front-loading of purpose. It is informative without being overly verbose, though it could be slightly more concise by merging some explanations.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given no output schema and zero parameters, the description adequately explains the return values, experimental status, and how to use the tool in the broader workflow. It provides enough context for an AI to understand when and why to invoke it.

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 input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage, so the description cannot add parameter details. It compensates by explaining the output fields and usage context, meeting the baseline for a parameterless tool.

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 clearly states the tool returns parameters for opening a trustless Kaspa channel, including specific return fields. It distinguishes from sibling tools like channel_status and open_session by focusing on configuration retrieval.

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 explains when to use this tool (before opening a channel) and mentions the experimental status and alternative client library. It does not explicitly list exclusions or when not to use, but provides sufficient context for correct usage.

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

All k402 tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, with detailed descriptions that prevent ambiguity. Even within related domains (e.g., covenant operations, proving steps), the functions are well-separated and described.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a verb_noun or noun_noun pattern with underscores, but there are some single-verb names like 'catalog' and 'classify'. Within subdomains naming is consistent (e.g., kaspa_*, covenant_*, prove_*). Minor deviations prevent a perfect score.

Tool Count3/5

36 tools is on the high side for a typical MCP server, but the broad scope (blockchain, payments, ZK proving, text processing, search, registry) justifies the count. It borders on being too large for easy navigation but remains reasonable.

Completeness4/5

The server covers a wide range of functionalities with no critical gaps for its stated domain. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct Kaspa send transaction tool), but the covenant tools provide a workaround. Overall, the surface is fairly complete.

Resources

Need Help?