Upload a RISC Zero program binary (the .bin risc0-build emits, base64) once; returns its content-addressed image_id (also the verification key), reusable across proofs. Paid (~$0.01).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| program_b64 | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the paid nature (~$0.01), the output (image_id as verification key), and reusability. While it does not discuss side effects or failure modes, the cost and outcome transparency is strong for a simple upload operation.
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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and key details (upload, return value, cost). Every word is necessary and informative, with no redundancy.
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 the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the tool does, its inputs, outputs, and cost. It could mention size limits or overwrite behavior, but for most use cases it is sufficiently complete.
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 description provides meaningful context for the single parameter program_b64 beyond the schema's minimal 'Program B64' title. It specifies base64 encoding and that it comes from risc0-build, which compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.
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 action (upload), the resource (RISC Zero program binary), the format (base64), and the result (returns content-addressed image_id). It also distinguishes from siblings by specifying it's a one-time upload for reuse across proofs, which is a unique 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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like prove_preflight or prove_submit. It implies usage for uploading a program before proving, but lacks direct guidance on selection criteria or when not to use.
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.