Broadcast a signed covenant tx (RpcTransaction JSON from covenant_build). MAINNET moves real KAS — run covenant_check first. Paid (~$0.0003).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| network | No | mainnet | |
| transaction | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that the tool is paid (~$0.0003) and that mainnet involves real KAS movement, implying it is a mutation. However, it lacks details on failure modes, rate limits, or authentication requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long and front-loads the action and object. It wastes no words and includes critical notes about mainnet and cost. A slightly more structured format could improve readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should cover more. It mentions cost and prerequisite but does not describe return values, error handling, or what happens upon success/failure. For a broadcast tool, this is a significant gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'transaction' parameter as 'RpcTransaction JSON from covenant_build', but does not explain the 'network' parameter (only mentioned indirectly via 'MAINNET'). This leaves one parameter under-documented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb 'Broadcast' and specifies the resource as 'signed covenant tx (RpcTransaction JSON from covenant_build)'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like covenant_build and covenant_check by implying this is the final step. However, it could be more explicit about the overall purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use this tool: after covenant_build and after running covenant_check first. It warns that mainnet moves real KAS. It does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the prerequisite is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
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.
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.
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.