Compile a Silverscript covenant to script hex, ABI, hardened template hash, and its P2SH address on each network. constructor_args is the silverc ctor JSON (e.g. [{"kind":"int","data":7}]). Paid (~$0.002). NOTE: 'compiles' ≠ proven on-chain.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source | Yes | ||
| constructor_args | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. Discloses outputs, cost, and a limitation (not proven on-chain). Could mention more about error behavior or rate limits, but covers key traits.
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 plus a note, all essential. No extra words, front-loaded with the main action and outputs.
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?
For a compile tool with simple parameters and no output schema, description is fairly complete: purpose, example, cost, caveat. Could address maximum size or timeout, but generally sufficient.
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 has 0% description coverage; description adds meaning by explaining constructor_args with a concrete JSON example and implying source is the Silverscript code. Could detail array items further.
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?
Clearly states the tool compiles a Silverscript covenant, listing specific outputs (script hex, ABI, hardened template hash, P2SH address). Distinguishes from siblings like covenant_build or covenant_check.
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?
Provides a practical example for constructor_args and warns about cost and the note that compilation is not on-chain proof. However, lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives.
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.