Live UTXO set locked under a covenant address (covenant state inspection), from the node. Optionally filter by covenant_id. Paid (~$0.0003).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | ||
| network | No | mainnet | |
| covenant_id | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the operation is a live inspection (non-destructive) and that it requires payment (~$0.0003). This gives a clear behavioral profile. However, it does not mention potential errors or rate limits.
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 extremely concise with three sentences: purpose, optional filter, and cost. Every sentence adds value. There is no redundant information, making it easy to scan.
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?
The tool has moderate complexity (3 params, no output schema, no annotations). The description covers the purpose, key parameters, and cost. It does not explain the return format or pagination, but for a simple live UTXO set inspection, the provided information is mostly 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?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the address parameter as 'covenant address' and the covenant_id as an optional filter, adding meaning beyond the schema. However, the network parameter is not explained, leaving a gap. Overall, it adds moderate value.
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 the tool retrieves the live UTXO set locked under a covenant address, which is a specific resource. It mentions the optional filter by covenant_id. While it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like kaspa_utxos, it does not explicitly call out alternatives.
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 implies that the tool should be used when needing covenant UTXOs, and notes the optional covenant_id filter. However, it provides no guidance on when not to use it or explicit exclusion criteria. The paid nature is mentioned but not contextualized as a usage consideration.
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.