Local txscript pre-verify of a signed covenant tx BEFORE broadcast — catches script failures that would otherwise cost you a broadcast. 'entries' are the spent UTXOs (covenant_utxos output plugs in directly). Returns {all_ok, inputs:[{index, ok, error?}]}. Paid (~$0.0005).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entries | Yes | ||
| transaction | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is 'Local', 'pre-verify', and 'Paid (~$0.0005)', implying a safe read-only operation. It also describes the return structure. However, it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or potential error conditions.
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?
Two sentences. First sentence states purpose and benefit. Second explains inputs and output. No fluff, every word adds value.
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?
Complexity is moderate (covenant pre-verify). Description covers the return structure and one parameter. Missing details on transaction format and error handling, but overall adequate for an agent to understand the tool's role.
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 coverage is 0% (no descriptions in schema). The description explains 'entries' as spent UTXOs and references covenant_utxos, but does not describe the 'transaction' parameter format or constraints. Partial coverage only.
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 clearly states 'Local txscript pre-verify of a signed covenant tx BEFORE broadcast', using a specific verb ('pre-verify') and resource ('covenant tx'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like covenant_broadcast by emphasizing pre-broadcast verification.
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?
Description tells when to use ('BEFORE broadcast') and how to provide inputs ('entries are the spent UTXOs (covenant_utxos output plugs in directly)'). It does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives, but the context is clear enough.
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.